Jump to content
Jimmy__the__Pro

Women In Combat

Recommended Posts

Plan Text: The U.S. Congress will repeal the Combat Exclusion Law, which currently prevents women from entering in direct ground combat.

 

Women want to join because DGC is one of the criterion for being promoted in the military also women want to join because there is a fair playing field and no discrimination in combat effectiveness.

 

Comments? Args? What do you think?

 

Help is appriciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan Text: The U.S. Congress will repeal the Combat Exclusion Law, which currently prevents women from entering in direct ground combat.

 

Women want to join because DGC is one of the criterion for being promoted in the military also women want to join because there is a fair playing field and no discrimination in combat effectiveness.

 

Comments? Args? What do you think?

 

Help is appriciated.

 

T - Effects - Very much so

Spending - Women + all combat = $$

CMR - Destroys army wish to fight

Civil Rights turn - Women + combat = End of rights (especially abortion)

Other random stuff...(I can't think right now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of something. The aff fiats it overturns the ground combat exclusion, which allows women to serve. But how does the plan get to fiat two actions and say that women will be given equipment to fight? This kinda means aff wouldn't solve any readiness, overstretch advantages etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heg DA - there is good evidence out there that talks about how this would be disasterous. In particular there is a card that suggests allowing women in combat would do more damage to the military than pearl harbor. Just take on the Patriarchy debate and argue heg good, realism good and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is already threads on this, when o want to find something out about a specific case, jsut use the search function. any questions you have on the case are probably already answered.

 

i would destroy you with the submarines PIC (even though PICS are illegit.) best argument against this case. period.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't run Women in Combat!

If you're reading the Michigan one, my lab put it out. It has pretty much no solvency or inherency, b/c WICA laws are never enforced.

Its also not topical at all. The plan takes like four steps to fall into the resolution.

You also open up so much K ground by using the military.

It's perhaps the worst case ever.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

women are already involved in direct ground combat. I saw it on a daily basis in Iraq. or are you refering to women enlisting into combat jobs? because although women are not yet allowed to join areas such as infantry and artillery, they serve on the fronts just like most of the soldiers over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
women are already involved in direct ground combat. I saw it on a daily basis in Iraq. or are you refering to women enlisting into combat jobs? because although women are not yet allowed to join areas such as infantry and artillery, they serve on the fronts just like most of the soldiers over there.

 

This is true, and it kills your inh/solvency. There are some great cards on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is a very good argument agaist the case, however if they claim patriarchy i don't think this argument holds as much weight, becaue i would assume the argument would be made that as lone as the restrictions are in place, patriarchy is entrenched, or something along thse lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T - Effects - Very much so

 

what does T effects mean? Sorry i am new to this.

 

Spending - Women + all combat = $$

 

1. Not all women are going into combat, only those that can physically prove themselves. Thus spending is greatly decreased, no disadvantage.

 

2. Training and Equipment already provided in budget for recruits. Women need no special equipment or training, thus intergrating them into the training and equipment would be no different than putting new male recruits there. No spending issues. No disad.

 

CMR - Destroys army wish to fight

I dont think the Army really has a wish to fight right now, at least not the soldiers in the army. Most of the soldiers do not know when they are coming home or where the enemy is right now, so the incentive to fight is really lacking. Also, think of this in terms of direct ground combat. If you are going into combat with a substantial risk of dying, then you really dont want to be in that position at all, thus you really dont wish to fight.

 

I would say that the army doesnt really have a wish to fight. I think the army's wish is to maintain stability and order. If the army wished to fight, then I would think it would look for one, even in times of peace.

 

Civil Rights turn - Women + combat = End of rights (especially abortion)

 

Okay let's look at what civil rights are being violated under the combat exclusion law. Mainly, EQUALITY. I'm talking about the same civil rights violations that didnt allow black people nor women the chance to vote, the same violations that barred blacks from joining the army. So on and so forth. Without equality, our other civil liberties dont mean very much, because equality is a core civil liberty, without it, none of the other civil liberties matter, at least not enough to make a fuss over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Not all women are going into combat, only those that can physically prove themselves. Thus spending is greatly decreased, no disadvantage.

 

2. Training and Equipment already provided in budget for recruits. Women need no special equipment or training, thus intergrating them into the training and equipment would be no different than putting new male recruits there. No spending issues. No disad.

 

 

Am I the only one who sees that your second point negates your first? All females who pass basic training are capable soldiers. Thus it can be said that all female soldiers are combat ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T- Establish means new policy

T- Fx

Essentialism

Butler

 

Counter interp: Establish means to bring about permanantly. From Webster's 7th Colligiate s/p? dictionary.

 

Counter interp is better because it is more inclusive, i.e. it can mean to make new or to reify something.

 

Abuse of neg interp is that their def does not cover a full spectrum of the meaning of establish. If I establish fact, that does not mean I make a new fact, it means I verify that. Neg's definition is one volumed and crappy.

 

Standards:

 

Education: Only covering one meaning of a word severly limits education.

 

Fairness: Limiting the defintion to only one plane kills Affirmative ground and makes creating a plan text nearly impossible

 

Reasonability: Come on, limiting it this much is certainly unreasonable.

 

Other stupid stadards....

 

Voting issue's: Aff upholds education, Fairness and resonability with the counter interp, neg kills all of these.

 

Neg def is abusive and puts way too many restraints on the round.

 

Also, this case is so topical its not funny. (not needed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who sees that your second point negates your first? All females who pass basic training are capable soldiers. Thus it can be said that all female soldiers are combat ready.

 

Whoah whoah, please tell me you are not confusing basic training and thinking that means you can fight in direct ground combat.

 

Like, there is more training you need before you are considered ready for "direct ground combat". That's why women can have basic training, yet Congress disallows them from direct ground combat.

 

If these two things were the same, women could not enter basic training, thus not fight at all.

 

Second, I would contend that just because you can pass "basic" training does not mean you are ready for "intense" fighting, this is where men and women are put in direct ground combat training and in fewer #'s than basic. Two totally different types of training and readiness to fight for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought of something. The aff fiats it overturns the ground combat exclusion, which allows women to serve. But how does the plan get to fiat two actions and say that women will be given equipment to fight? This kinda means aff wouldn't solve any readiness, overstretch advantages etc.

 

Dude, women want to apply for direct ground combat training now, but are not allowed to, thus if I fiat that Direct ground combat is excluded, I am also able to logically fiat that the requests previously denied by Congress to allow women in would have to be overturned also.

 

Think about it this way. If women didn't request this from Congress or there wasn't some kind of controversey on this issue concerning Congress, why would it even be brought up? Because Congress has refused to listen to the pleas of women who want direct ground combat training, when it overturns the law, it also overturns its stance on giving women the training and equipment also.

 

If Congress has said no to equipment and training before (which for this to be an issue they have had to) then when they repeal this, then they will also have to repeal their decision and allow them to have this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The heg DA - there is good evidence out there that talks about how this would be disasterous. In particular there is a card that suggests allowing women in combat would do more damage to the military than pearl harbor. Just take on the Patriarchy debate and argue heg good, realism good and such.

 

I would say that women in combat are key to preserving U.S. Heg. because A) they eliminate military overstretch, thus allowing us to withhold power in other nations B) Because our allies dont see us as discriminatory bastards and thus we set up a model for others to follow which substantially breaks down the negative views of women held in other countries and C) I support Heg good and realism good because of all of the cards I have showing points A and B and also my advantages and solvency which will greatly outweigh any counter args you bring up to show how I do not meet Heg Good or Realism good with my case.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...