The United States is Ready for a Female President

Thanks for the debate Con, and thanks to all the future voters for taking the time to read and evaluate it! Con has clarified to me that I may address both R2 and R3 this round. A: Is the U.S Military ready for a female commander and chief? Con’s connection between women serving in combat roles and a woman president is not entirely cogent. The main argument against women in combat roles is that women are not as physically capable of fighting as men are as Con's own source reveals:“The reaction from the right wing, like former U.S. Army officer and Arkansas Congressman Tom Cotton, is that women are “biologically unfit for combat;” that they are incapable of performing to the standard of their male counterparts; that it “goes against their nature. Physical fitness has little to do with the presidency and no sane person would be against a women president due to the physical limitations of women. The argument fails on this fact alone. Moreover, if women serving in combat is controversial, I have to ask Con if he disagrees that America was ready for women being in combat roles. His case rests on the false premise that being ready for change entails everyone’s accepting of it. To accept this notion, we’d have to denounce every discriminatory change taken place. Women’s suffrage was not entirely agreed upon but that doesn’t mean we weren’t ready for it. We were passed ready because we needed it. Gay marriage faces strong opposition from certain groups but that is precisely one reason why America is ready for it. Removing discriminatory laws helps remove bigotry and misguided inequality. A woman president is already fully within the bounds of the law. Waiting until all factions of society are accepting of it, is waiting too long. B: Foreign affairs It’s ironic that Con mentions this since the current most talked about potential woman candidate is Hilary Clinton who served as Secretary of State--a position primarily concerned with foreign relations. Because of her experience in foreign relations, the argument could even be made that Hillary is better prepared in this regard than other candidates who don’t have the experience. So, I believe, there’s no reason to not be confident in her effectiveness in foreign affairs. Of course, Hillary is just one women and other possible candidates won’t have that same experience, but this debate is about all women and Hillary seems a very possible, if not probably, next president, so the sole fact that Hillary would be more than capable in foreign affairs completely debunks Con’s argument. Even if this is an issue, the fact that some females are perpared to surmount it refutes it in itself since then it would only be that some but not all females are not ready to be president. Pro’s case Women in politics Con misinterprets the statistic. It’s not that people are not willing to vote for women (I’ve already shown they are). It’s that not enough women are willing to pursue political careers. Con says the U.S. will not be ready for a female president until a societal shift takes place. Con misunderstands my argument. Americans are perfectly willing to elect a woman--the popularity of Hillary and Warren strongly attest to that. It’s women who need to be willing to run for public office. We’re in fit condition for a woman president because America needs more women in politics and the presidency is one way to fulfill this need, and having a woman president would do more good than harm. I don’t see how my argument does not apply. We’re in fit condition because it would be beneficial. That’s entirely within the bounds of the definition. Just like a broken down car is ready for/needs new parts, we’re ready for/in need of more women in politics. If Con could show some harm it would cause, he'd have a case, but he has not made a sound argument to that effect. More representation of woman is a need. We can answer this need without causing other harms. Therefore, we're in fit condition to fulfill this need and thus, in fit condition for a woman preident. Attitude towards having a female president Again, Con misinterprets the statistic. The figure of 95% clearly shows Americans are willing, and thus ready, to vote for women. This is a democracy so that percentage doesn’t need to be nearly so high. Even the group least likely to--republican conservatives--have 80% who don’t factor in gender or who would be more likely to vote for her because of her gender. And the 19% who would be less likely may still be willing to vote for a woman, they’d just be less likely. So there is absolutely no question that Americans are willing to vote for a woman president. Con’s only argument is that the fact that there are so few women in politics means Americans are not actually ready. However, the lack of women in politics does not imply that Americans are not willing to vote for woman, rather women are less likely to go into politics. Moreover, providing multiples polls is superior evidence to Con’s interpretation of the statistic--which is wrong anyway. Societal shift Con reverts back to his argument that I’m putting the cart before the horse. I’ll rebutt him again with the fact that a female president would be beneficial to the U.S., which is why we’re ready for one. If Con could make an argument that it’s too soon and that a female president would do harm since America is not ready, than he’d have a case against me. But he doesn’t. Our political system has a gap that needs to be filled and filling the gap would not bring about any significant unwanted results. Does this not mean we’re in fit condition to have this gap filled? As stated, we can either help change the status quo or wait for the status quo to be changed before electing a female president. Electing a woman president would have a more positive impact in 2016 than 20 or 40 years later, so we are actually more ready to help change stereotypes and get more women running for office. All my arguments stand. The resolution is affirmed.