EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1274

That women should be allowed into front-line combat roles

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
lannan13lannan13 (PRO)

This round will be a bit short on mind end due to such a hectic schedule.


Contention 1: Allowed into the frontlines.


The one thing that we need to focus in this debate is the wording of the resolution in terms of allowed. We can see that many opponents of the resolution use arguments of harms of women injured in the frontlines and so forth. The resolution isn't a forcing of females into the frontlines, but a permission and the opening up of the role to women. Does this mean that all women would become infantry grunts? The answer is simply no. We currently are not aware of the numbers that would occur with the women being permitted into the frontlines, but we have to realize that this only opens the avenue for women to acquire MOS's that are in relation to frontline combat roles. For all we know, women might not elect to join the frontlines or military officers may discriminate to bar them from entry, but legally they are still able to acquire and apply for these roles.


Contention 2: Female numbers


One thing we cannot deny is the simple fact that women are a rising force in the US military. They currently make-up 14% of the military and do many other things for the US military to include nearly 16% of officers are women [1]. They only account for 2.7% of all frontline operations. We would have to see that looking at many arguments here that there are very little numbers here to be susceptible to harms in the military due to the fact that they are such a small number of frontline military, but they do make up a huge portion of officers, so we have to permit their lines here to see that there would be hindrance of the military operations if we fail to allow them in the frontlines and since their numbers aren't the largest, we could see that any harms would be mitigated.


Contention 3: Don't ask don't tell


In another argument, we can see that in 2011, that President Obama lifted Don't ask Don't tell. Many of the similar arguments against openly gays being in the military were similar to those of women, with sexual assault, troop sexual attraction, and so forth. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is a lead into the repealing of these archaic laws against women in the frontline.


Sources


1. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance/)

  
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-28 04:55:30
| Speak Round
cooldudebrocooldudebro (CON)
Burden and Method:I will be arguing that women should not be allowed into front-line combat roles.
For my opponent to win this debate, he will need to prove these two things.
1. Women do not decrease the efficiency/effectiveness of the military.
2. There isn't a difference between the average male and female soldier.
For my side to win the debate, I will have to prove these two things:
1. Women DO decrease the efficiency/effectiveness of the military.
2. There IS a difference between the average male and female soldier.
I will define these terms as the following:
Efficiency: functioning or producing effectively and with the least waste of effort; competent (1)
Effective; Producing a strong impression or response;striking (2)
Average: a level that is typical of a group, class, or series : a middle point between extremes (3)
Case 1: Physical Differences Between Men and Women

Sub-Case 1: Brute Strength
Men are stronger than women. This is not a fact that can be thrown out. Let's look at a scientific study for their analysis.
" Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body." (4)
What this means is that men have a greater proportion of muscle fibers in their upper body. This leads to males having distinct advantages in strength compared to their female counterparts. On top of this, men have more skeletal muscle.
" These findings indicate that men have more SM than women and that these gender differences are greater in the upper body. Independent of gender, aging is associated with a decrease in SM mass that is explained, in large measure, by a decrease in lower body SM occurring after the fifth decade." (5)
Another study seeks to confirm my point. (6)
Women's body's were meant to birth children. Therefore, their body is somewhat restricted. Their natural body leads them to store fat differently than men. Men are free from said restrictions. This leads to them being able to be physically superior in this respect.
Sub-Case 2: Bone Density
The sexes indeed have differently levels of bone density. This will affect how easily their bones break. Similarly, this will also affect how strong their overall physique is. Here is what this scientific study had to say on this matter.
". Age negatively correlated with bone mineral density in all measured sites except in the boys' spine. Sodium, protein, and fibres were nutrients that significantly correlated with bone mineral density. The study suggests that boys achieve peak bone density later than girls, and that this delay is the most prominent in the spine. In our study group, this difference could not be explained by different nutrition or the level of physical activity." (7)
Even during aging, men lose less bone density due to the fact that they gain more periosteal bone compared to women; leading women to lose more bone compared to male. This, again, leads to a weaker physique and bones that are easier to break. (8)

Sub-Case 3: Lung Capacity
Lung capacity is always useful in combat and sports. This allows people to "catch their breath" easier along with getting more oxygen needed for vital physical tasks. Women, again, fall to men in this category.
"The volume of adult female lungs is typically 10-12% smaller than that of males who have the same height and age. . The results suggest a disproportionate growth of the rib cage in females relative to the lung, which would be well suited to accommodate large abdominal volume displacements as in pregnancy. (9)
I would like to point out something concluded in this study. As you can see, female lung capacity could be the same as men if it weren't for the woman's own body restricting itself due to the necessity of its child bearing responsibilities. Thus, proving are males are less restricted compared to women.
Conclusion to Case 1:
As you can clearly see, women have many physical disadvantages compared to men. This will cause many physical disadvantages compared to men in combat. This will indeed reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of our military. This also proves that the average male and female soldier are not the same. Indeed, the male has many advantages compared to the female. Therefore, I am currently winning the burdens set for this debate.

Case 2: Tests Of Combat Effectiveness
Even if you aren't satisfied with scientific, biological reasons why female soldiers are not as capable compared to male soldiers, there are studies in which the squads were tested! Here were the results:

"

Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

And:

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

And:

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)

The report also says that female Marines had higher rates of injury throughout the experiment." (10)


The next source is from a woman that was in the military. Let's see what she has to say about women in combat roles.
"Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat." (11)


She brings up a powerful point. Women have to meet less standards compared to men. If they had to meet the same, very few could even qualify. On top of that, how will a woman deal with her period when in combat? Women who perform normal jobs need special care to deal with "that time of the month". How can a woman deal with it if she needs to be deployed?
"

One study of a brigade operating in Iraq in 2007 showed that women sustained more casualties than their male counterparts and suffered more illnesses. Female soldiers experienced three times the evacuation rate of male soldiers. And of those evacuated for medical reasons, a shocking 74 percent were for pregnancy-related issues.

The high rate of pregnancy among female soldiers is one of the best-kept secrets in the military. The various military branches are loath to publicize the figures regarding female soldiers becoming pregnant while deployed. But a study released just this week shows that military women have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than the comparable general population — some 50 percent higher. And the unplanned pregnancy rate for deployed women was as high as for those serving stateside.

And, of course, many of the pregnancies among deployed females involved sexual activity between soldiers in the field — which brings up one of the chief objections to women serving in combat roles" (12)


This brings up a powerful point. With the high pregnancy rate for women in the military, how can we deal with motherhood and deployment. A study confirms that a child needs his/her mother constantly in his/her early years! Without their mom, reduces hippocampal growth and hormone excretion will lead to a way higher chance of mental disorders in kids. (13)


On top of this, the study confirms women sustained more casualties; got ill more often, and got evacuated more often than men.



My point is clear. All of this points that having women in the military will lead to decreased effectiveness and efficiency in the military. This also proves that the average female soldier isn't as good as the average male soldier.



Conclusion:

Child-bearing and rearing are important duties which restrict women biologically.

Men are physically stronger and capable than women to participate in combat roles.

Women bring down the effectiveness and efficiency of the military when serving in front line combat roles.



I anxiously await your response



1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/efficient2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/effective3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/84776835. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/109040386. http://www.livescience.com/33513-men-vs-women-our-physical-differences-explained.html7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/193293798. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/117302519. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1277333110. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/11. http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/12. http://nypost.com/2013/01/26/women-in-combat-spells-trouble/13. http://m.Pnas.Org/content/113/22/6094.Extract


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-28 21:37:14
| Speak Round
lannan13lannan13 (PRO)
My opponent's first portion of BOP to me that women are different than men are purposterous since it is completely true as everything and everyone is different. HOWEVER, I will go and refute many of the arguments brought up by my opponent despite the great deal of underlining that he does. 

This may seem a great deal out of order here, but we can see that a great portion of my opponent's argument can simply be refuted just by arguing that women have to meet the same basic requirements as men. Are there differences? Yes, but we have to see that many groups are starting to require women to meet the same standards to join. The US Marine Corps has increased their standards, so that women joining the frontline MUST meet the same requirements as men [1]. All of my opponent's arguments are about women being unable to do the same as men, but if the requirements to meet this is the same, then there is no reason as to why they shouldn't be able to join. Since my opponent's entire case is based around the fact that women and men have different standards, the fact is the equal frontline requirement for grunts result in the negation and mitigation of my opponent's case and harms. 

Sources
1. (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/careers/marine-corps/2016/04/12/marine-corps-men-and-women-must-meet-same-standards-combat-jobs/82934800/) 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-30 18:02:41
| Speak Round
cooldudebrocooldudebro (CON)
I'm glad they did. Irony is, the only one to tried quit after her second time trying. She keeps failing miserably. (1)

On top of that, my menstrual, efficiency, combat fatalities, and everything still stands.

"

The only female officer enrolled on the Marine infantry training course has dropped out.

The woman, who has not been identified, failed two conditional training hikes last month during the grueling course - meaning she could not make the final cut and be selected for a front line combat role.

It was her second attempt at the program, after failing for the first time in August, and was the only female in the group.

But no female has been able to make it into the Marines.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told Marines in April he would not lower the standards to allow other groups in."




From my previous articles/arguments:

"

"A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."


The next source is from a woman that was in the military. Let's see what she has to say about women in combat roles.
"It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat." (11)



She brings up a powerful point. Women have to meet less standards compared to men. If they had to meet the same, very few could even qualify. On top of that, how will a woman deal with her period when in combat? Women who perform normal jobs need special care to deal with "that time of the month". How can a woman deal with it if she needs to be deployed?
"

One study of a brigade operating in Iraq in 2007 showed that women sustained more casualties than their male counterparts and suffered more illnesses. Female soldiers experienced three times the evacuation rate of male soldiers. And of those evacuated for medical reasons, a shocking 74 percent were for pregnancy-related issues.

The high rate of pregnancy among female soldiers is one of the best-kept secrets in the military. The various military branches are loath to publicize the figures regarding female soldiers becoming pregnant while deployed. But a study released just this week shows that military women have a higher rate of unplanned pregnancy than the comparable general population — some 50 percent higher. And the unplanned pregnancy rate for deployed women was as high as for those serving stateside.

And, of course, many of the pregnancies among deployed females involved sexual activity between soldiers in the field — which brings up one of the chief objections to women serving in combat roles" (12)


This brings up a powerful point. With the high pregnancy rate for women in the military, how can we deal with motherhood and deployment. A study confirms that a child needs his/her mother constantly in his/her early years! Without their mom, reduces hippocampal growth and hormone excretion will lead to a way higher chance of mental disorders in kids. (13)


On top of this, the study confirms women sustained more casualties; got ill more often, and got evacuated more often than men.



My point is clear. All of this points that having women in the military will lead to decreased effectiveness and efficiency in the military. This also proves that the average female soldier isn't as good as the average male soldier."


Unless you prove this wrong, you can not say that a female soldier is nearly as efficient or effective as a male soldier. You need to refute all of my claims for you to fulfill my burdens.





1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743796/Only-female-U-S-Marine-infantry-course-drops-failing-grueling-course.html

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-01 00:18:57
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
cooldudebrocooldudebro
@lannan13

Yes... There are simply too many points going against the affirmative's side of the resolution for such arguments not to be underlined.
Posted 2016-08-30 06:10:17
lannan13lannan13
So much underlining.
Posted 2016-08-29 20:45:13
lannan13lannan13
Don't worry. I should be able to get to it tonight. That depends on my internet connection of course.
Posted 2016-08-27 13:28:24
cooldudebrocooldudebro
*can still
Posted 2016-08-27 10:48:52
cooldudebrocooldudebro
@lannan13

I've been on vacation with a ton of college work. I still can reply. I granted you one time extension. You will not get another one.
Posted 2016-08-27 02:45:16
lannan13lannan13
Sorry, I've been busy. I can reply this weekend. I just need a few days.
Posted 2016-08-27 01:58:42
cooldudebrocooldudebro
@Zer0
yes
Posted 2016-08-22 19:58:14
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
@cooldudebro
Another of the same debate?
Posted 2016-08-22 19:25:04
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
I am already debating on this one at the moment.
Posted 2016-08-22 02:12:24
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29