CreateDebate


Debate Info

47
24
For against
Debate Score:71
Arguments:53
Total Votes:79
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (29)
 
 against (20)

Debate Creator

Dastan(24) pic



Women in the army

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

For

Side Score: 47
VS.

against

Side Score: 24
3 points

Women should have absolutely equal rights to try out for positions within the army, whether that's in combat, or administration, or leadership, or any other position. But, by the same logic, they should be tested against men.

Any woman that meets the standards required should be allowed in, there are plenty. Obviously this does put them at a disadvantage, as they do have different body types, but that is what I think is necessary to maintain a balance between strength of military & equal rights.

Side: For
Dastan(24) Disputed
1 point

Women should not be able to serve equal combat roles as armed forces because we need women in the world to do other things.

I believe that women should not be able to serve equal combat roles as men because there might be a shortage of women around the world. Already in China, there is an unequal ratio of men to women, and we need women to keep our human population going. Also, women need to be able to produce babies for this reason, and the only way they could do that is if they are 18+ years old. If a women decides to go fight the same combat roles as men in a time of war, we will lose a percentage of women worldwide, it is not like after the war only 10 women will die throughout the time of war.

Side: Against
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
4 points

Wow, you're sexist on so many levels.

We live in a country that stresses equal rights for women and minorities.

First of all, this is the internet, it's international. We don't all live in one country.

Second of all, so everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others? You can't have equal rights for some, but not for others, and still claim to support equality, even you say it yourself It is unfair for women to be discriminated against because of archaic values.

The actual combat is to protect citizens, such as these women.

Whereas male citizens should sacrifice their lives without a second thought, simply to sacrifice the citizens who are women?

[Women should not fight] because there might be a shortage of women around the world.

But even an equal military would still have many more men, it's more than illogical to save females by sacrificing males, in terms of equality. And then not letting them fight because there might be a shortage, in itself, is hardly valid.

in China, there is an unequal ratio of men to women

That's due to completely different reasons than this, and as there's little to no chance of the Chinese allowing females to serve in the near future, that's hardly relevant.

Also, women need to be able to produce babies for this reason, and the only way they could do that is if they are 18+ years old.

So a woman should have her civil liberties cut down just because she has a uterus? Do you also support outlawing gay relationships? Having a child is a choice, there is no developed country that is totalitarian enough to support an argument like this. They also do not need to be 18 to mother a child, that's medically incorrect.

we will lose a percentage of women worldwide

And female lives are more valuable than the other contestants, men?

I'm not a sexist twat, I support equality. But, this is not equality, this is ridiculous. You even said yourself that women should be in the army a few hours ago. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Side: For
Nick91983(270) Disputed
2 points

What can women do that men cant, other than give birth and breast feed?

Shortage of women? come on, there are 7 + BILLION people on the planet, war usually kills only a few hundred thousand and at best could kill a few million. Nuclear doesnt enter into the equation because if nukes are launched the world is basically done for anyway, only a few thousand have any chance of survival by staying in shielded underground bunkers, and even then, it is probably a delusional that after they run out of food and need to return to the surface that they could survive in the fallout. Fallout was only a game series afterall :).

The unequal ratio of men and women in China is a good thing because population grown is a bad thing. it is the reason why we need so much economic growth and is the reason why scarcity increases globally, and why desperation on many levels occurs. Too many people + finite resources = scarcity and desperation.

Women dont need to be 18+ to have babies. it is recommended that they are at least this old but females can have babies as soon as they ovulate. (not a recommendation, just a biological truth)

Globally we could lose millions of women in war and we would still be sooooo veryyyy overpopulated as to make nearly no dent in the global population demographics.

(Suggestion - learn a little bit more before you say things out loud or on the internet. I am not trying to be mean but to be honest, i laughed at what you wrote because it would only make sense if we had national populations below a ~ 5 million. Most nations have tens and hundreds of millions of people respectively - The US has ~300 million, China has ~ 1,400 Million) Even the City of New York has something like 8 million. Maintaining sufficient population is only a problem when we have few people on the planet.

Globally we could lose ~ 1 out of every 14 people and still be in no way threatened as a species. If this were to occure by non-nuclear and/or non-persistant chemical and biological means the quality of life would go up tremendously, scarcity and environmental degradation would be vastly smaller problems and war would be so infrequent that the term paradise would be a strongly justifiable adjective for earth.

Side: For
3 points

This issue is quite sophisticated and provokes another questions: what does it mean to "serve in the army"? Should women run and shoot or take part in hostilities or cruelly kill?

Nevertheless, it is not a secret that the high level of physical strength of men's muscles can not be compared with female's. Besides, for women it is impossible to achieve a decent muscle mass.

In order to avoid idle chatter, there is statistical data: the ratio of female and male muscles strength on average 2 / 3 and the muscles of the upper limbs is 20-30% weaker than the lower ones. Here is more information http://www.jaxtrainer.com/m-vs-w.html. Women should choose burden that they could bear.

What does attract women in the army- heroism? In major cases women do not have the desire to protect the homeland but go to serve in army because for some it is an opportunity to get high salary and also a good pension in the future and particular privileges. For example, the salary of civilian nurses is lower than military nurses have. However, women can find well-paid job outside of army and have a good pension and benefits.

In case if a war breaks out, women serving in the army will have to leave their children. What will be with frail, delicate women after they start to kill? It is definitely can turn a woman to a man.

However, there are a lot of posts in the security, communications, medicine where females will be much more useful rather than men because of women's tolerance, diligence, ability to do hard work which requires patience. Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby.

If women serve in army, they should serve where they can be really useful without trying to do the job that only men can do.

It is necessary to remember that there is one life and to live by doing men's job, females do not have time to really stay women.

Side: For
Nick91983(270) Disputed
3 points

I think the notion of "serve in the military" has now been reduced to combat roles insofar as we already have women in all brances of the armed services - to my knowledge some have actually served in combat roles, although vastly less frequently.

It does take a high level of physical strength for service, however the issue is not about the physical abilities of women generally, it is about the right of women to try and take part equally. Even if there was only one woman who could serve in a combat role, she should have the right to do it for the sake of equality.

Women are attracted to the army for the same reasons as men. Why would you assume that there is any difference between men and women in terms of their motivations? Men go into it for money too, the majority of people go into it with the hopes that there will not be a war. Why would anyone want to fight in a war? Both men and women can and do find jobs in and out of the military with various rates of pay, why do you need to differentiate between men and women on that point?

If war breaks out, the mothers and fathers have to go to war, why do you think that women are more important to raising children than fathers are? I know many fathers who are great parents, even some who went to war. Many fathers are better than mothers. My friend Mike went to iraq and he is a decent father, way better than the mother who was a drug addict that killed herself by overdosing. When the fathers go to war it is just as much of a loss to the children as it would be with a mother (which already occurs anyway even if they are not serving in combat roles). The quality of a person that goes to war tends to stay the same insofar as being parents. My father's friend and former co-worker (my dad is retired now) is an army ranger and he is a good father even though he has served in both iraq and afganistan. War can amplify negative tendencies in people and give them PTSD but a mother having this issue is not meaningfully different than a father having this issue. A kid isnt going to be like my dad went into the army and when he got back from war he used to beat me within an inch of my life, but because my mother was not messed up, I am fine and have to poorly adjusted elements of my personality, it was as though my father didnt torture me. - This is not how it works.

Women are not necessarily more tollerant, or more dillignent, or work harder, or have more patience. And why do you want men to be in harms way? The baby argument is not a good one because we as a nation and also globally have more than enough people, the population is not going to be adversely influenced by the loss of women in a war. Even if half of the casualties of the last two wars were female, it wouldnt really effect birthrates.

Allow me to give you an arument similar to the last one you gave that points to the rediculousness of the statement.

- It is necessary to remember that there is one life and to live by a females job (caring for babies), men do not have time to really stay men.

What am i a ogre? am i not suited for caring for children? ever see the movie GI jane? What are your thoughts about female gymnasts? they physically prevent their development by training so hard that they cant have periods. should women also not be allowed to compete in sports? Women that grow up in extreme poverty near areas of high crime tend to be bad mothers should we remove all women from these areas?

Side: Against
Eldana(74) Clarified
1 point

As you said «the issue is not about the physical abilities of women generally, it is about the right of women to try and take part equally.» However, if the issue includes the serve of women in army equally with men, it means that females should have the same responsibilities and do the same things that men do such as killing people, which requires physical strength. That is why I mentioned the differences of physical abilities between women and men.

In addition, I am speaking about physical abilities because good physical fitness is an indicator of better outcome in the battle. However, women can not fight as effectively as men.

This argument is not the fruit of my imagination. The research has been done.

“Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of

Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates, and found that: The

top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical

Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets. Only seven

percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent

of men exceed it. A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a

50-year- old man. Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard

achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Woman by nature are smaller and slower, and

have 40% less upper body strength.” EFFICIENCY- that is the point.

You said “Why would you assume that there is any difference between men and women in terms of their motivations?”

Maybe you did not read my post attentively because I did not said that there is difference between women and men in their motivations to serve in army. I just mention that many women make decision to serve in army in order to earn money and benefits. However, men are not exception and I do not reject this fact.

I did not say that mothers are better than fathers or vice versa. You pay too much attention to this issue.

It is wonderful that you have courageous friend who does not afraid of blood and violence and at the same time he is a good father in contrast to woman who was a biological mother. However, it is out of the topic. Besides, I do not think that alcoholics and drug addicted people are allowed to take place in army whether they are females or males.

You did not understand my point about women and children. When I said “In case if a war breaks out, women serving in the army will have to leave their children”. I considered newborn babies.

Of course, man also can provide all necessary care for the baby. Nevertheless, child should be nourished with breast milk.

“Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants, with a range of benefits for infants' health, growth, immunity and development”.

-- Healthy People 2010, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

How would it possible without mother who should go to take a part in fight?

Besides, I did not say that if a lot of women will be killed in a war, it can somehow affect on the rate of population.

“there is one life and to live, by doing men's job, females do not have time to really stay women”. Did I say that females job is caring for babies? Definitely I did not. It is your opinion. As I understood, you define women's main goal as just upbringing children. It sounds quite challenging.

Women should be women. They should be sensitive.

Finally, I gave credible evidences in order to support my opinion.

However, you did not mention any reason for which women should serve in the army. That is why I cannot agree with your points.

Side: For
Dastan(24) Disputed
1 point

Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby.

I disagree with this statement. Because There is also the problem of pregnancies, definitely when "enlisted pregnancy rates jumped from 12 to 19 percent" (Donnelly) in only the past two years. Having combat situations jeopardized because a woman finds out she is pregnant during an extended combat mission would be totally counterproductive to any benefits. There is also the problem of soldiers who don't know they're pregnant yet who might put unnecessary stress on the unborn child in the most fragile early stages of the baby's life.

Side: against
Eldana(74) Clarified
1 point

"Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby". => such types of work as: "posts in the security, communications, medicine" obviously do not have destructive influence on health.

Side: For
2 points

Any woman that chooses to fight for her country should be allowed to do so.

We live in a country that stresses equal rights for women and minorities. That should encompass all aspects of life. It is unfair for women to be discriminated against because of archaic values. If a woman wants to go into battle to defend her country, then she should be allowed. The actual combat is to protect citizens, such as these women. They should be able to fight for themselves, if they want.

Side: For
2 points

Every may join the army. Black or white and man or women.

Side: For
1 point

why shouldn't women go in the army they can just do as good of a job as a man can so they should be allowed

Side: For

Most of the women I served with were indeed "tough." To put it another way, they were no stronger or weaker than some of the men, serving in the Armed Forces.

Side: For
1 point

Does it really matter what gender the person is? I realize in past times, women were not legally permitted on the battlefield, but did that stop them?

In the civil war, a woman's husband went out for battle one day. She then decided to disguise herself as a man, and fight alongside her husband. They both died.

This shows that women can have the same drive to go out and protect thier country or beliefs in this case. If the women are willing to go out and risk thier lives for thier country, then they should be able to.

Side: For
1 point

Women make up 14 percent of the active-duty force and more than 17 percent of the reserves.

----Source of information: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/mar/17/women-military-prepare-leadership-roles/

*These woman do their job as well as ANY of the men in the army.

I dare you to get rid of woman in the military.. I dare you "manly men".

Side: For
1 point

Women should have absolutely equal rights to try out for positions within the army, whether that's in combat, or administration, or leadership, or any other position. But, by the same logic, they should be tested against men.

Any woman that meets the standards required should be allowed in, there are plenty. Obviously this does put them at a disadvantage, as they do have different body types, but that is what I think is necessary to maintain a balance between strength of military & equal rights.

Side: For
1 point

Additionally, such types of work do not have harmful influence on women's health and they are able to have a baby.

I disagree with this statement. Because There is also the problem of pregnancies, definitely when "enlisted pregnancy rates jumped from 12 to 19 percent" (Donnelly) in only the past two years. Having combat situations jeopardized because a woman finds out she is pregnant during an extended combat mission would be totally counterproductive to any benefits. There is also the problem of soldiers who don't know they're pregnant yet who might put unnecessary stress on the unborn child in the most fragile early stages of the baby's life.

Side: For
1 point

I don't think women should be forced into combat situations. I agree they weren't built for it emotionally or physically. If a woman wants to do it and the Army doesn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't forbid it, but I'm afraid once it's not against the rules women who don't want to be in combat may be forced to be. This will be especially bad if the draft is re instituted. I think mothers, especially, shouldn't be in combat zones, especially if their children are young. I think children need to have their mothers around during those years. It's one thing to be a working mom. It's another to be working on the other side of the world where you can't be home for the kids at night.

Side: For
1 point

As a man i am againts this. It is not natural have in army Women-Solider. From Ancient time soliders were only men , all wars won men. I cant understand why women wanted to be so quel as men in specific sections like ARMY. War is a terrible, Horrible thing and how so beautiful human being will be in war, in army. Army is not a game it is strick job , very difficult, many men cant be succefull in army becouse you need to be like steel. I really dont think that women really want it. I am prefer see girl in a romatic restouran with a wine glass instead of girl in camo suite with AK-47.

Side: Against
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

There's actually been quite a few times in history where women have been soldiers.

The famous Boadicea: the Celt warrior who defended Britain from the Romans, the Dahomey Amazons, St Joan of Arc, they all were successful female soldiers. Obviously, they are a minority, but especially with the modern development of guns, females are increasingly equal on the battlefield.

I really dont think that women really want it.

I don't really think that it's your choice, surely it would be better to let them choose? You're at least bordering on sexist.

Side: For
1 point

Plenty of women want to be in a military position, and plenty are qualified to do so. The idea of wanting "strength" in the military can be supported by militaries, as was said earlier, having equal entrance requirements for both sexes. I know some guys that I would be horrified to see in the military, because they wouldn't be able to work in a restrictive atmosphere such as the Army, and i know some women that i feel the same way about. The point isn't sexes, the point is physical and mental commitment to the service. Oh, and just because you would RATHER see women in a nice outfit holding a bottle of wine, doesn't mean you can make that choice. Some women like camo pants and AK 47's. Just like some men would rather wear dresses ;)

Side: For
1 point

I don't think women should be forced into combat situations. I agree they weren't built for it emotionally or physically. If a woman wants to do it and the Army doesn't have a problem with it, I wouldn't forbid it, but I'm afraid once it's not against the rules women who don't want to be in combat may be forced to be. This will be especially bad if the draft is re instituted. I think mothers, especially, shouldn't be in combat zones, especially if their children are young. I think children need to have their mothers around during those years. It's one thing to be a working mom. It's another to be working on the other side of the world where you can't be home for the kids at night.

Side: against
1 point

I think that women shouldn't be in army.

And it's all not about rights of women. We need to have strong common scene and cold head. Sometimes women can be more more stressful than men and it can badly damage some serious situations.

Side: Against
1 point

Although women have been warriors across the world and throughout history, American culture is a huge obstacle.

So much WILL go wrong.

You will have 5 men competing for 1 woman in a squad of 6. This breaks unit cohesion (esprit decor). 1 or more of the males will choose to save the female over a male who is injured worse.

Me, no. I'd let her die so that we could finish the mission. (I am a combat vet and fought in 8 major battles). I completely shut down all of my emotions in combat except rage/anger and exhilaration. But prior to that for instance, I would be distracted because I would want to at least have sex with her.

In Desert Shield (the recon and logistics phase) - I had not seen a female in 7 months. I was already in Iraq doing reconnaissance and not around any form of civilization.

I'm not alone in saying that I would want to have sex one last time before getting killed.

In the Gulf War, Iraq War and Afghanistan, females in support units would intentionally get pregnant to be sent back to the US. Just a small percentage, but males don't have that option unless they purposely self-injure or flat out refuse (in which case they may not even get to go to jail if they are already deep in the soup).

Females do make excellent fighter pilots (helicopter and fixed wing). They have demonstrated that they can vaporize the enemy. They fly cargo, re-fueling and intercept planes as well as being crew chiefs, but that's a completely different environment than the sand box.

Women are not inferior, and maybe it would work out just like no one went ballistic on gays when the ban lifted. We might be surprised.

Side: against
Darkb456(94) Disputed
1 point

You will have 5 men competing for 1 woman in a squad of 6. This breaks unit cohesion (esprit decor). 1 or more of the males will choose to save the female over a male who is injured worse.

Where did you get that from, a manga?

Side: For
1 point

Do not need women in the army, not because they do not correspond to certain points, but because on the shoulders of women is no less important task, which, in their physiological and psychological data, they must decide. Army is a man's world. But nature does not need to interfere. Everybody has their own destiny.

Side: against
0 points

Focusing on the human population is a smart thing to consider. If you have a society with mostly males and few males, allowing women in the military is a ridicoulous and stupid idea. Why? We need to produce. We need to grow. The action of allowing women in the army IN THIS SCENARIO is naturally wrong. It goes against the purpose of life which is to grow and advance. Well, religiously, that is not the purpose of life but i don't want to get into that. ha ha.

Now, what if the scenario was flipped? Mostly women and few men, it would be stupid to allow men in the military.

If we have a stable amount of men and women, then i suggest to allow both sex in the military.

But there is many view to consider. One other view to consider is "personal choice." If i was a woman and there was going to be a war, i would want to fight if i wanted to fight regardless of the male to women ratio.

So basically, the answer to this debate is dependable.

Side: Against
ChuckHades(3198) Disputed
1 point

If you have a society with mostly males and few females, allowing women in the military is a ridicoulous and stupid idea.

Well it would be, but I think your premise is incorrect. Prove to me that there are substantially more males than females in the world, and I will agree with you. But until I have reason to believe your claim, I must disagree with you.

Side: For
TheThinker(1850) Disputed
1 point

Im saying "If" as an hypothetical question. I don't know if we do have a society with mostly males and a few females. It is a scenario. A hypothetical scenario.

Side: Against
0 points

There arent more males than females. And also, its not like we are hurting for population levels. We just passed 7 billion globally. Anyone who makes a population argument and doesnt qualify it as only valid for small populations is (im trying to think of a nice way to put it [what is a nice way to say dumb?]) ___.

Even though global population is a problem because we are so many that we are degrading the global system and deleteriously althering the worlds systems, we need to maintain our species.

So dumb. (im not trying to be mean, its just so dumb)

Side: For
1 point

If you have a society with mostly males and few males

Huh?

allowing women in the military is a ridicoulous and stupid idea.

Will you ever learn to spell?

Well, religiously, that is not the purpose of life but i don't want to get into that.

Oh, so you won't get into religion, but you will dive straight into a diatribe on what women are supposed to do with their lives? Who are you to decide how women should lead their lives? As sentient human beings, they have as much right to decide how they can lead their lives as any man does.

If we have a stable amount of men and women, then i suggest to allow both sex in the military.

That is the current state of affairs. According to the United Nations report that I have linked, the world's sex ratio in the year 2000 is 102 males to 100 females. In the USA, the sex ratio is 97 males to 100 females. I think that I can safely say that there is a fair balance of males and females in the world and the USA.

Supporting Evidence: UN report on demography (www.un.org)
Side: For
TheThinker(1850) Disputed
2 points

I meant mostly males and few females.

Will you ever learn to spell?

Well, i did spell ridiculous wrong. But to me it doesn't matter because i got the term correctly spelled for the most part.

Oh, so you won't get into religion, but you will dive straight into a diatribe on what women are supposed to do with their lives? Who are you to decide how women should lead their lives? As sentient human beings, they have as much right to decide how they can lead their lives as any man does.

Do you want a growing society? Read my hypothetical scenarios and understand that it would be stupid to allow a shortage of sex into the military. If you don't think it is stupid, then im appalled. It is stupid.

This is like saying that children have the choice to not go to school. Well, yes they have their personal right to do what they want to do in life. However, America will grow dumber in economics and its overall well being. And because im for one wants my country to not be taken over easily by outside forces, it is my personal right to tell children that they should go to school.

You have to look at the view that im seeing. It is ridiculous and retarded to allowing women in the military IF there is a shortage of them in a society. Why? You need women to produce children. You need men as well. And that is why i also proposed the view of mostly women and a shortage of men. If there is a shortage of men and mostly women, it would be stupid to allow all the men in the military.

In this case, i do have the "right" to say how women and men should lead their lives. Because i don't want our society to die. In a way, it is a personal right to have your society grow and not diminish.

But of course, there are other perspectives to look at things. I don't have the right to control women and men because it is THEIR life. It is their personal choice. People do have the personal choice how they live their lives.

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

It is an "if" scenario. In the end, in a general perspective, everybody has a personal right to tell others what they should do. I believe in that because if what they are doing affects my well being, then yes, it is my personal right.

It affects my well being as in that i want to continue my legacy in this world through grandchildren.

If children didn't went to school, it could possibly affect my personal safety in this world.

Can i ask you one thing? Do you think it is stupid to allow women in the military IF there is a shortage? This is a "if" question. Im not saying there is a shortage of women. Im just proposing hypothetical questions to this debate. And if not, then why?

Side: Against
Nick91983(270) Disputed
1 point

there isnt much difference between male and female populations.

We dont need to grow as a population

Bad scenario - i.e. not applicable.

Life has no intrinsic purpose - teleological thinking is unjustified.

...

The answer to this debate could depend on variables (on an abstract theoretical level where hypotheses were varied like you described) however, the debate is not dependent on abstract variables. The debate is about current numbers and current statuses, etc... To say that this argument depends on variables is technically true, but it is like saying that breathing is optional, i could technically hook my body up to an oxygenation machine and never have to breath, but is that really how we want to predicate all arguments. Nearly all arguments can be said to depend on the variables. why do this?

Side: For
TheThinker(1850) Disputed
0 points

The purpose of life, non religiously, is to grow and produce. You see the purpose subliminally shown in history textbooks. Cleary you seem as an intelligent person by the way you type. Can you withstand days not going to college or work? I can't because i have this secret need to grow and produce. I have this urge to not waste my life and make it useful on my own terms. I don't want to be a slacker. And i can become a slacker now because i am fortunate.

I don't think my scenario's are bad. They clearly prove why allowing the shortage of sex in the military is a stupid idea.

Why do this? Well just like you said, nearly all arguments depend on variables. I want to propose those variables. There are many views to consider. One view may propose an "against" side. And another view may propose a "For" side.

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

And i am talking about small populations. Or population with a ridiculous ratios.

Side: Against