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

I appreciate the response from Con. I implore readers once again to notice Con asks a lot of hypothetical questions and attacks my arguments, but has only made one single argument supporting their own position. This is the argument about talent pools at the end of Round 3, which I will get to later. Con oversimplifies and misrepresents my arguments on multiple levels. This is called a “straw man” fallacy – oversimplifying or misrepresenting an argument to make it artificially easy to rebut(1). Consider the following: “Pro isn't arguing that some sort of standard should be applied to both men and women EQUALLY, but rather . . . the fact they [are] a woman is an automatic disqualification” This is misrepresentation because it’s not really what I said. I am AGAINST applying standards to men and women UNEQUALLY (reference my “category 2” argument in round 2). I am saying that if we DID apply standards equally across the board, there would be negative consequences that decrease effectiveness. It is also oversimplification. I am not saying that two X chromosomes and ovaries are an “automatic disqualification.” I am saying let’s look at the potential consequences of this policy and measure them objectively. If the consequences outweigh the benefits – THAT is the disqualification. I am not “anti-women,” I'm “anti-making elite units less effective.” Con does manage one argument: that females increase the size of the talent pool. To this I ask, why don’t men’s professional contact sports (football, boxing, hockey, etc…) double the size of their talent pools by opening to females? Do we not think that if any team could make themselves more competitive by recruiting females they would? Decide for yourselves. My opponent accuses me of special pleading by asking for a “’special case’ or an exception to their rules.” I fail to see how talking about women in a debate about women in the infantry is a special case. My OPPONENT actually asks for special cases every time they try to introduce other populations into the debate. Here, Con commits another logical fallacy called a “red herring.” This is where someone uses unrelated or irrelevant arguments to distract listeners from the actual issue (2). Contemplating the merits of Blacks, Whites, Christians, Atheists in the military are separate issues for separate debates. However, I will provide a short response nonetheless. Anyone who has been to these Middle Eastern conflict areas knows no group is more mistreated than women. I am a Christian, I had Soldiers who were Black, White, Atheist, etc… we were all warmly received by and allowed to converse with the Afghan elders. There are also high levels of homosexuality in some of these cultures, and it is either accepted or turned a blind eye to (3). These traits were not barriers in my experience. I DID notice that there was NEVER a woman in sight when men were meeting together. With that, let’s re-focus on the issue at hand. Con says I change my argument. I do not change it, I BUILD upon it. That's the reason for having multiple rounds. Building from sexual privacy to sexual distraction is not a major shift. Lack of sexual privacy leads to sexual distraction, which leads to problems. Once again I propose this is why we have separate bathrooms, showers, etc… Con asks a strange question here: “Why isn't it the men who are denied entry into the Special Forces because they might be too [sexually] distracting to some woman? Why does the argument here only work one way?” ...... It’s because the argument only APPLIES one way! This may be a valid question if men were seeking entry into an all-female force, but they are not. It’s the other way around. How can men be sexually distracting to women who aren’t there? Once again, Con asks a hypothetical question that doesn’t apply to this debate. Thanks for reading to everyone following this debate. I eagerly await Con’s response. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://publicintelligence.net...