EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That women should be allowed into front-line combat roles

0 points
1 point
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
In this debate, I will be making a case for allowing women into front-line combat roles. 


It is always important to provide your definitions in a debate. I will take the debate title literally. 

Women- an adult female person.
Allow- admit as legal or acceptable. Being permitted. 
Front-line- the military line or part of an army that is closest to the enemy.
Combat- fighting between armed forces.
Role- the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.
Should- used to express obligation, duty, propriety, or desirability
Propriety- the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.

So, the title of this debate(what I am affirming) means that adult females should be able to be admitted into fights between armed forces in the front-line(Part closest to the enemy). 
I will be arguing for any form of armed group for combat in this debate, whether it be a state(country) military, private army, organized citizens militia, etc. My opponent will probably refer to specifically a countries military(possibly the U.S. military).


I will set up a method for determining what should and shouldn't be allowed into armed forces combat roles and apply it to adult females(women). The title of this debate is objective except for the word "should", I would like to make it objective in this debate. The question is, What should and should not be in armed combat? There is a word that can be used to determine this, it is "propriety". I provided a definition of propriety in the definitions. Basically, an armed group(military) exists for a reason, to protect an area using force and for wars, or a better way to state it's purpose is to support the interests of a state and/or citizens. So, armed groups are for fighting, whether for defense or offense. To be part of this in combat, there is some standards of behavior that must be followed.
In order for something to be allowed into an armed group for combat, it must be able to contribute achieving its desired goals in the way it is organized. If it does, then it "should" be allowed into its roles. If it doesn't, then it definitely shouldn't be allowed. So, propriety is the standard. 

What does and doesn't

A military is built up of people, weapons, vehicles, etc. My focus here is specifically on people. Many people simply don't fall under the standard. For example, disabled people who can't run or people who can't handle the physical demands of combat. Combat has certain demands, which is why you will usually be tested and/or conditioned before joining a combat role. If someone doesn't meet the demands/requirements, they shouldn't be allowed to join a combat role. According to my standard, if it is propriety in combat, the person then should(expressing propriety) be allowed. If it can't operate according to propriety, then it hinders the purpose of combat, meaning it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously, people not physically capable fail the test of propriety since they can't fulfill the standards required for combat. Now, lets apply women to this standard of whether they "should" be allowed. 

Women in combat

Do women fit in the standard? Adult females are people just like adult males. They don't have any specific weaknesses like the lack of physical ability since it all depends on the person. Different people have different abilities. They are simply human and require conditioning as well. The difference is their gender, which can either be biological sex, sex-based social structures, or gender identity. My opponent will probably be referring to biological sex, but it mostly goes by gender identity. If someone identifies as a female, then they are considered to be one.
Do women fit propriety in front-line combat rules? The answer is that it depends on the female, but surely there are some that are capable of the demands for combat. The women capable could be admitted without problem. As for conforming to the accepted standards, with the physical demands necessary and usefulness is enough. Women capable of the demands would be able to meet the standards of combat capable men adhere to. 
In order for women not to fit into the standard, the differences in the genders must put females exclusively as hindering military combat in some way and/or not being able to naturally meet the standards. I shall point out the main differences(biological) between male and female:
1. Y- chromosome
2. Type of Gonads
3. Sex hormones
4. Internal reproductive anatomy
5. External Genitalia 
If my opponent wants to point out one(or more) of these differences as hindering women's(all women in general) ability in combat then they should feel free to but I don't see these main biological differences as hindering their ability. I admit, I can't go through every possible option and refute them, so instead, I will respond to my opponents arguments in the next round as if they are the options. 
Of course, there are other differences and possibilities on what could hinder women's(all women in general) combat ability/meeting the standard as compared to men. However, I am arguing here that there is none, nothing about women that hinders their combat ability and prevents them from meeting the propriety standard. None of the differences with females have an inherent hindrance on combat in the military. If my opponent thinks there is one, I encourage him to point it out for me. 


I conclude that women should be allowed into front-line combat roles, since they fit the standard of propriety(which is apart of should). Now, my opponent will probably agree(or not) with much of what I am saying but will point out other reasons to deny women in combat(since that is their role in this debate). Its possible they might point out a reason they don't consider to fit into my standard. Until then, I rest my case. 

Thanks for reading

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-21 14:49:50
| 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)

Explanation to Burden 1:
What the first burden means is simply how good the troop could be in combat. In the middle of gun fire, when true valor shines, which squads would come out on top? I will be pushing for the notion that a male-only squad would fare better in combat than a squad that incorporates both genders. My opponent stands with the belief that there would not be a change in quality; or that squads incorporating both gender would do even better than male-exclusive squads.

Explanation to Burden 2:
This means that if my opponent wants to win the debate, he would have to prove to me that I could pick an average soldier that is a man and compare him with an average soldier that is a woman, they would fare the exact same; or the female would perform even better.

Challenging Pro's Value
I would like to challenge my opponent's definition of propriety. We can both believe that what may be socially and morally acceptable may not be the best course of action. I propose the value for this debate is the efficiency and effectiveness of our military.

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.

"As an important determinant of osteoporotic fracture risk, peak bone density tends to be higher in men than in women. The aim of this study was to see whether young men and women differed in the time and skeletal region of peak bone density. We also investigated the influence of diet and physical activity on bone mass. The study group included 51 male and 75 female students aged 19 to 25 years. Bone mineral density was measured for the spine, total femur, and the distal third of the radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Dietary data were obtained using a specially designed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Bone mineral density (BMD; g cm(-2)) was higher in boys than in girls at all measured sites, while bone mineral apparent density (BMAD; g cm(-3)) was higher in girls. 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. In this study, we investigated how this volume difference is distributed between the rib cage and the diaphragm abdomen compartments. Internal rib cage dimensions, diaphragm position relative to spine, and diaphragm length were compared in 21 normal male and 19 normal female subjects at three different lung volumes using anterior-posterior and lateral chest radiographs. At all lung volumes examined, females had smaller radial rib cage dimensions in relationship to height than males, a greater inclination of ribs, a comparable diaphragm dome position relative to the spine, and a shorter diaphragm length. Female subjects exhibited a greater inspiratory rib cage muscle contribution during resting breathing than males, presumably reflecting an improved mechanical advantage conferred to these muscles by the greater inclination of ribs. Because of a greater inclination of ribs, female rib cages could accommodate a greater volume expansion. 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.


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.


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)

This confirms my burdens. The study also quotes the following:

"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.


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/efficient
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/effective
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10904038
6. http://www.livescience.com/33513-men-vs-women-our-physical-differences-explained.html
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19329379
8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11730251
9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773331
10. 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:
2016-08-21 20:23:41
| Speak Round
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard (PRO)
I would first of all like to thank my opponent for his first round. 

My case

I would first of all like to restate my case. 
To "should" be allowed in the military, I set up a method where propriety is the standard. By propriety, I mean conforming to required standards. A better way to word it is like I did in round 1, "In order for something to be allowed into an armed group for combat, it must be able to contribute achieving its desired goals in the way it is organized. If it does, then it "should" be allowed into its roles. If it doesn't, then it definitely shouldn't be allowed.
So, I do realize an issue with the standard of propriety, it is being defined as behavior that is socially or morally acceptable, however, I  defined it as, conforming to the accepted requirements. However, the black bold letters above is a better description of my standard. I pointed out in the first round that no differences between men and women hinder the ability in combat, so I must prove that women can be capable of the requirements for combat. My opponent pointed out two things I must prove, the first one I accept, the second, I disagree with. There is differences with all soldiers, but as long as they meet the standard of conforming to the required goals without hindrance, then it doesn't matter anymore. 
Now, my standard requires people be conditioned and tested before joining a combat role since that is required to meet the standards. You obviously need to train for this. From this, I can point out what I need to show in this debate.

What I need to show:

1. That some women can meet the standards required for combat(same as men). 

If women can possibly meet the standards required in combat, then they should be allowed in combat roles. Otherwise, not allowing would be sexist and discriminatory. My opponent pointed out that women do not meet the required standards in combat, being weaker than men on average. However, if I can demonstrate that some women can meet the same standards as men, then I successfully show that women fall in my standard I set up for "should" allowing women in combat. My opponent pointed out that I have to prove that women do not decrease the efficiency/effectiveness of the military. If I could point out that women can meet the standards, then allowing them as long as they meet the required standards would not decrease the effectiveness of the military. This is the only thing I need to show. 


Now to my opponents arguments:

1. Womens lack of strength, bone density, and lung capacity would hinder the efforts of combat.
2. Studies show females have higher rates of injury and illness in combat.

I will actually accept these arguments, but will point out that these don't necessarily mean women should not be allowed. Just that women, on average, can't hold up to the physical combat situations like men do. 


Now, In order for women to meet my standard, they will have to be able to meet the standards necessary for combat. They will have to be able to pass the same physical tests as anybody else. 
If some can, then they should be allowed. So can they? Certainly they can.

"As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary. It is easy to recruit and deploy women who are in better shape than many men sent into combat."*1

"To select the best course of action when it came to potentially integrating women into combat-related jobs, the Marine Corps conducted studies over two years to determine how we could perform alongside their male counterparts. More than 1,000 females went through the study with only 200 hundred successfully completed the training."*2

It turns out that some women are able to meet the same standards. According to the study, only 1/5 of the females made it, but at least some were able to. 

"Though "we know from research that fewer women can meet some of the elite standards like [Army] Ranger School, there are still some that can make it," adds Megan MacKenzie, author of Beyond the Band of Brothers: The US Military and the Myth That Women Can't Fight. "It's a question of whether you exclude an entire gender based on averages.""*3

Surely, some women can make it, excluding the possibility of women joining combat because of the gender averages would be sexist and discriminatory otherwise. If some women can make it, then they should be allowed under my standard(since they would contribute to the goal of combat without hindrance).

Now, my opponent did argue that women have weaker bodies for the demands of combat. However, women can condition their bodies for it. 
""The big problem with physical injuries in women is that, when they're under load, they have a lot of stress fractures and things like that," Schaefer said. "If you allow them to train and condition their bodies over a longer period of time, then you have fewer of those injuries.""*4
Women can train and condition their bodies for this, having fewer injuries in combat. Like any person, women can condition themselves for the physical demands. 

Another thing to point out is about women and their period. My opponent pointed this problem out. However, my opponent is ignoring the issues with men as well.
"Yet men's bodies are equally unpredictable, says MacKenzie. "If we are going to talk about women's PMS, we should talk about men's boners too," she wrote in a tongue-in-cheek response to media coverage of the special-ops survey, citing "reflex erections" that happen when men get scared or stressed: "a definite combat liability—particularly with younger male troops." In all seriousness, she tells Mother Jones, "Men have hormones; women have hormones. But the idea that women in Iraq are sitting with their feet up eating M&M's every 28 days is ridiculous.""*3

"Former and current female officers point out that it's possible to suppress menstruation with hormonal contraceptives, and that there are even funnels designed to allow women to urinate standing up. Ultimately, women are professionals who can handle the rough conditions of deployment like anyone else. "When I deployed, we had no showers for over 30 days and we were in full MOPP gear, sweating and being disgusting just like everyone else," Meghan Malloy, a sergeant first class in the Army, told Women in International Security.*3

Problems like these can be solved and not entirely get in the way of combat. 


I only had to show that women can be physically prepared like men for combat because then they can fit in my model. Since women(that pass the physical tests) fit in my model, they therefore should be allowed in combat. Unless my opponent wants to point out a reason why women should be entirely excluded from combat roles because of gender averages, I made a pretty good argument for allowing females into combat. 

Thanks for reading!


*1- http://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/
*2- https://www.dvidshub.net/news/185511/editorial-why-females-belong-front-lines
*3- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/female-officers-break-down-myths-about-women-at-war
*4- http://www.livescience.com/52998-women-combat-gender-differences.html

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-25 16:11:07
| Speak Round
cooldudebrocooldudebro (CON)
What He Needs To Prove:
I must reiterate my point. For female soldiers to be allowed in the front lines, Pro must proves 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.

Pro admits my point on the gender's physical differences to be valid. Thus, the has conceded the second point that he needs to prove. At this point, I have won the debate.

Pro then tries to get my second point thrown out; as he knows the vast majority of female soldiers can not even come close to topping men. However, what I meant by this case is that if I took an average soldier that is female and an average male soldier, he must prove there would be no difference. Here's the thing... He can't. This is why he's trying to get this point thrown out. If he can't do this, it proves that allowing women into the military would be less effective than hiring a male; as the average female soldier is less effective; causing the military to lose effectiveness compared to if they would've hired a male soldier. Thus, I'm winning this debate.

We need to have the best of the best out there in combat.

Source 1 Refutation:
My opponent presented a source that does not have any citations for that stance. However, his own source then goes on to agree with me!


Physical Ability. While the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this.

Efficiency. Some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move." (1)

So, thanks for finding a source that actually agrees with me!

Rebuttal to Source 2:

This article is about a supposed study that took place in Japan. This would be fine; if the study was actually cited in the article! The study is not cited in this article. Unless Pro can find the actual source study, this source should not hold credibility.

Rebuttal to Source 3:

This source is all emotional appeal for the "I bet some women can make it!". There isn't any statistics sourced whatsoever. However, why would there be separate standards for the genders if the women can make it as they say?

The source then tries to make the dumbest comparison I've ever heard. They compare a male erection to a female period. While it may be embarrassing for males to get an erection, it does not hinder their combat ability in the slightest; unlike female periods which will make them considerably weaker.

Then, the people try to say periods can be easily taken care of by hormones. However, if it was so easily taken care of, why are some women pushing for days off of work when they have their period?! Some companies are offering "paid menstrual leave" for women who are on their period. If it was as easy to deal with as this source says it is, why is this even a thing? (2)

Rebuttal to Source 4:

The same is with males. It does not refute my point in the slightest. Males are still far less likely to be injured. When it comes to injury, please refer to my argument where it was actually combat tested. For a reminder:


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" (3)


Pro's back is against the wall; and he knows it. He hasn't addressed the majority of my points such as women and pregnancy when deployed along with the high rate of pregnancy of these women. Along with that, he concedes on a lot of my points; such as women not being as adept as men. He himself has proven that women are physically weaker than men. Through this, he agreed that letting women in would reduce the effectiveness of the military; as the military could put in the same amount of training and get a better result.

Vote Con.

1. http://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/

2. http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/paid-menstrual-leave-is-now-a-thing/
3. http://nypost.com/2013/01/26/women-in-combat-spells-trouble/

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-25 21:50:12
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Yeah, it was a fair win, but it would be better if more judged.
Posted 2016-09-16 08:04:07

Well, you couldn't refute what I was saying so...
Posted 2016-09-15 21:46:13
Lose by one point.
Posted 2016-09-15 15:54:42
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-09-02 09:01:47
fire_wingsJudge: fire_wings
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Forfeit from PRO, hence it is an obvious win for CON.

Do NOT forfeit
2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 15000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None