The U.S. Military Infantry and Special Forces should remain closed to women

Opening commentsLet's get something straight here shall we. Pro isn't arguing that some sort of standard should be applied to both men and women EQUALLY, but rather the fact that a person is a woman, no matter what else their merits just the fact they a woman is an automatic disqualification. I maintain that Pro has not given us a good argument to support this dis-qualification on the basis of being a woman. Arguments used selectively on women/special pleadingI have shown that Pro uses his argument selectively only to woman but doesn't apply the same logic to other groups. Pro tried to use the fact that in certain missions that the military will have to deal with people/groups who hold woman in low regard as a justification for not just allowing woman to be in the infantry/special forces at all. I pointed out that this same reasoning could be used to deny other groups. In response Pro says. .. "Mentioning Protestants, Catholics, Whites, Blacks, Homosexuals, etc" are poor examples because these groups are not asked to wear burkas and sit in different rooms. None of these examples are as much of a cultural barrier to communication as gender. "Sure in some situations a woman may be required to wear a burka and sit in a different room, also in some area's homosexuals are stoned to death and christians are ordered on pain of death to convert to Islam. What do you think Pro ? does this constitute a barrier to communication ? Is Pro now going to demand that we don't allow these groups to not be allowed in the special forces ? of course not. Cause once again Pro doesn't really have an argument. .. .. .. .. .. .HE HAS AN EXCUSE to try and deny one group (women). In logic terms what Pro is doing is known as special pleading. .. "Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency " in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. " [1]Pro changes his argumentYou will recall that Pro mentioned certain acts that might have to be performed, eg: pooping in bags in a tank & wipe downs. This of it's self doesn't justify anything, yet alone denying woman from the special forces. In order to try and make the link he cited "privacy". I once again pointed out the same argument could be used to deny all men from the special forces. Pro says in reply. .. .The point is not whether women should take baby wipe showers, it is that naked women are sexually distracting to most men and this fact has a strong potential to decrease unit effectiveness. Of course I do not accept that same argument when applied to men because it does not apply within genders, it applies between them"Notice the shift here by Pro to cite "sexual distraction". That was NOT pros original argument in this area, this is a shift of Pros part. But let's deal with this new argument anyway. Also notice once again the special pleading. Why isn't it the men who are denied entry into the special forces because they might be too sexual distracting to some woman ? Why does the argument here only work one way ? cause once again Pro special pleads for his side. Also why is it only sexual distraction that is used here ? what about other distractions ? what about distractions caused by theological disputes such as the existence of God/s ? Would pro accept such reasoning to deny all christians to the speical forces ? of course not. Military recruitment/creating unitsConsider the question posed by Pro. .. "how does integrating females enhance unit effectiveness? "A unit is compromised of more than one person. The effectiveness of the unit goes hand and hand with effectiveness of the individuals that make up that unit. Or to put it more simply, better the people, better the unit and dare I say. .. .. .. .. .. .. .better the military in general. Pro himself puts it this way. .. . "The combat arms exist to fight and win the nation’s wars, period. To do so they must ensure they put the strongest, fastest, most cohesive, and most effective units on the battlefield"Pros policy doesn't just deny women, it denies the military the ability to make up the best unit possible cause they are restricted to a talent pool at least when it comes to the infantry and special forces to only being able to create units consisting of one gender (males). Pros position here clearly conflicts with the goal of the military to create the best units possible. My position clearly allows the military a better chance of putting together better units including the infantry and special forces by NOT restricting their talent pool and creation of units from only one gender. I look forward to Pros reply. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...