CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
22
Of course! What....? NO!
Debate Score:60
Arguments:47
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Of course! (26)
 
 What....? NO! (21)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3319) pic



Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces?

Of course!

Side Score: 38
VS.

What....? NO!

Side Score: 22
3 points

This position upholds equality between the sexes. As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary.

Side: Of course!
2 points

I say yes. It is discriminatory to not allow women with the same physical abilities as men to not serve. Why can men die for their country when women cannot? Obviously they would still have to pass the same training as men and also take pregnancy tests, ect.

Side: Of course!
nova5409(2) Disputed
1 point

if the way they handed out contracts to potential recruits was changed i would agree with you and if the standards were the same but the way it is now hell no!!! Why because most women right out of the gate cant physically move 250 to 350 lbs of dead wait and neither can some men (and that's about the weight of the avg marine or solider going into combat these days). Secondly women don't physically develop as fast men as far as strength and endurance goes (that's the average male or female there are always exceptions). It would take more time and money for them to get on the same level.

Side: What....? NO!
2 points

Women who meet the same physical requirements as male soldiers should be able to participate in anything the men can. Eligibility for a job should be determined by how capable that person is at doing that job, not what their gender is.

On the same note I find it quite silly that female soldiers usually have less stringent fitness tests than male soldiers. I understand the basis for that is that women are naturally physically weaker than men, so "it's only fair that we give them easier tests". But if it has been determined that you need to be at a certain physical level in order to perform this job effectively, why should some people be able to get the job without meeting that level, or others not be able to get it unless they exceed that level?

If I was born with an intellectual disability and can barely understand the world around me, should I be allowed to become a teacher or doctor because that disability wasn't my fault and I should "have a fair go"? No, I would have to find a job that someone of my intellectual ability can perform well. This same standard should be applied to gender differences.

Side: Of course!
1 point

They should because how will the women learn to fight outside of combat

?

Side: Of course!
2 points

I was on the other side of this debate a couple of years ago.

I've come to the conclusion that for specific positions where physicality is a prerequisite not only to survival, but to completing a mission, the standardized tests set in place as to whether one qualifies should not be changed in the least, however women should be allowed to test.

I have to be honest, I believe it is a once-in-a-lifetime event when a female is able to do all of run a mile in under 6 minutes, do 50 man (not knee) pushups in a minute, carry 60+ pounds on her back for a 10 mile hike in formation, and pass the obstacle course - but I'm sure she's out there. She should have opportunity.

What should not happen is a lowering of these standards to accomodate.

Unfair? No, not really. There are men who cannot do it as well.

Side: Of course!
Sazzz(96) Disputed
1 point

The only problem i currently have with this would be the fifty pushups. My current number of pushups is 43. I'm working on it.

Side: Of course!
DaWolfman(3319) Disputed
1 point

You are telling me that you can run a mile in under 6 minutes and do a 10 mile hike with 60 pounds on your back, but are physically unable to do 50 pushups?

Side: What....? NO!
1 point

Yes, i think they should. If you disagree, please read my reasoning.

Firstly, in my country, women, whilst not being in infantry units, serve alongside infantry units. For instance, a female signaller may serve with a combat infantry unit. That means, that she will fight with them, live with them, see combat with them just like they do, on top of their own job of signaller.

A female dog handerler will see combat alongside the rest of the unit they are attached to, whilst also having to look after the goddamn dog! Imagine being in a firefight and not only having to look after your own life, but also that of a dog!

We have proved their worth through methods like this that they CAN serve effectively on the front line.

Side: Of course!
DaWolfman(3319) Disputed
1 point

However certain jobs are improbable for your average female. The job of being a grunt or infantry class soldier requires a heavy work load. One which the female body is not physically suited for anatomically.

Side: What....? NO!
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

I do not dispute that, overall, men are physically stronger than women. However, this rule is not universal, and female bodybuilding has a healthy following (even discounting those of them on steroids). These women are undoubtedly as strong, or stronger, than the average soldier.

I apologize if you have already addressed this in your earlier posts, but do you think even a women capable of meeting all the requirements of her male counterparts should still be disqualified from combat roles? It seems like most of the women interested in such roles would be fairly likely to be physically qualified for it.

Side: Of course!
Sazzz(96) Disputed
1 point

They already have this same work load as an average infantry soldier, as well as say, being a translator.

Side: Of course!
1 point

everyone says that women is not suitable for combat roles physically, but mentally women are more stronger than men. She has the mental ability to face any challeges in the war front.

Physical requirement in the combat roles can be decreased with the improvement of technology which increases the thinking ability and other major requirement needed for the warfront, at this stage women should be allowed.

Side: Technology
1 point

If they can pass the same standards the men going into combat roles are held to, then I don't see why not.

Side: Of course!
0 points

Yes, I think women should be allowed 2 combat the difficult choice of what they should make me for breakfasts lunch and dinner. They are well suited for the role as they have been preparing 4 it their whole lives. It also keeps them out of harms way so that the men can do the real work.

Side: Of course!
Abbott(162) Disputed
2 points

you are jerk i'm a girl and that was a very unesasery coment you made was very offensive

Side: Of course!
cuntyguy2(204) Disputed
1 point

Shut up and get back in the kitchen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Side: What....? NO!
DaWolfman(3319) Disputed
1 point

Debate title clearly says "combat roles in the armed forces".

Your attempt at humor was unfortunately not a very tasteful one.

Side: What....? NO!

Yes, I think women should be allowed 2 combat the difficult choice of what they should make me for breakfasts lunch and dinner. They are well suited for the role as they have been preparing 4 it their whole lives. It also keeps them out of harms way so that the men can do the real work.

This is so true!!!

Side: Of course!
2 points

In fact, unlike men, women carry more fat than muscles, so they're obviously less efficient than men in combat roles.

Of course there should be equality between the sexes, but woman and men cannot be compared when it comes to physical differences. At this point feminism is just stupid by demanding rights that would certainly be unfavorable.

Side: What....? NO!
Sazzz(96) Disputed
1 point

The problem is that some women ARE fit enough. Admittedly, there are less of them, however, just because strong, capable women are in the minority, why does that mean we should not be able to join the infantry?

Side: Of course!
Ken21allen(4) Disputed
1 point

You say, "We". Are you implying that you are among the minority of women who can pull the same weight as a trained infantryman? If so, Kudos. But regardless, If this door gets cracked for small percentage of women, it might as well be flung wide open. Not to mention the POW Possibility...HMMM

Side: What....? NO!
1 point

Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.

Side: What....? NO!
Posionus(76) Disputed
2 points

But what if some women are suited? They still would have to go through the same training.

Side: Of course!
TheBoberton(5) Disputed
2 points

there are some to which women are just not physically suited

The same can be applied to some men. Does that mean that we should just dump off everyone and get rid of the army because some people of a certain gender may not be able to do something?

While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.

Source? Statistics? Something that supports this absurd line of thought?

Side: Of course!
1 point

You want statistics on how 'many women can't hold a 200 pound soldier'? Can your cousin do that? Can your sister? If they can, they should be absolutely able to join the front lines.

Side: What....? NO!
DaWolfman(3319) Disputed
1 point

At the cellular level there's no difference between female muscle and male muscle. So, theoretically a woman with X pounds of muscle mass will be as strong as a male with X pounds of muscle mass. Women are designed to carry more muscle in the lower body, so she will probably have stronger legs and glutes and he will have stronger arms/back/chest.

We ( Women ) have fewer muscle fibers (especially in the upper body), so it's difficult for us to achieve the muscle mass of even an untrained man.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=112194491

That would be from two separate body builders.

Women are not designed to be as strong as men, however there are few exceptions.

Side: What....? NO!
1 point

Lest say that I am a 5'4, 140 lb wrestler on a high school wrestling team. My wrestling coach is not being discriminatory by prohibiting me from fighting someone who is 6'4, 260 lbs. I said that to say this; I have no problem culturally with women having equal roles as men. But putting women into combat situations is irresponsible. Expecting a 5'4, 140 woman to pull the same weight as a company of 5'10 180 lb men is dangerous. Not to mention the POW possibility. hmmm.

Side: What....? NO!
1 point

Women would obviously still have to pass the same basic training and be of the same minimum/maximum bodily specifications as men. Someone's sex does not totally determine their strength, height and endurance. Also, if the POW thing is such a big deal, women could be required to be sterile to fight in combat.

Side: What....? NO!
1 point

I have heard the argument that we could make sterilization a prerequisite for female combat. OK, I think we are missing the point.

...."You don't scare me Mr. Al-Qaeda. I'm sterilized. Ravage me all you want. I can't get pregnant anyway!"....

No...I don't think thats the point. Across the board equality in the military in impractical. Period.

Side: What....? NO!
1 point

I am anti-war unless in defence of one's own country--not theoretically but actually. Thus, if someone invades this country, both men and women should serve their country in ways best suited to their sex and areas of expertise. If, however, insanity continues to rule this country and we continue to invade other countries, women should not be able to serve in combat but should remain at home to rally against wars perpetrated on other countries. While men and women should have equal rights relative to pay, the sexes like it or not are different. We each excel at different things. We complement one another. And while there are in Nature anomalies; e.g., homosexuality, and a whole host of other sexual variables amongst us, the norm should be what is followed for the most part. However,there is still room for the butch woman to do whatever she wants and can do in a man's world and an effeminate man should be able to work at what he qualifies for in a woman's world.

Side: What....? NO!
Bohemian(3867) Disputed
1 point

Women can still serve in non-combat roles within the Military.

Side: Of course!