Women in combat

"all women, without regard to their individual abilities and even if they are physically capable of meeting the physical demands of combat, should be discriminated against on the basis of their being female and excluded from combat positions, then you should vote for my opponent." This is an extremely biased statement. As mentioned in my previous argument, even the best women who were amazing in TRAINING were NOT able to handle real combat. In fact, through all the research that I've done on this topic, not a single woman who was in the military recommended it to other women or even continued to push this distorted "equality". All of them say that the battlefield is NOT a place for women. "This does not mean that standards for combat readiness (like the West Point obstacle course) should be lowered to accommodate for women, but rather that only those women who can demonstrate their physical aptitude should not be rendered ineligible on the basis that they are female" The fact of the matter is, that standards ARE already lower. This means that lower quality soldiers are allowed into the military, which makes the military less effective overall. http://www.thedailybeast.com... "So, when CON argues that some women are physically incapable of meeting the demands of combat, he's stating a fact but he's not advancing his argument because that point is neither in dispute nor does it advance his argument." It is in dispute since my opponent is arguing that women are physically capable. It is not "some" women, it is most women, as shown by the statistics. "but I would add that the military is also not made to institutionally discriminate against half of its population." This is an extreme exaggeration in the sense that most women don't even want to be in the military. Of the small population of women who DO want to be in the military, LESS THAN 8% said that they wanted to be in a combat position. So in reality, the military would only be barring a very tiny minority from what they want to do. http://dailycaller.com... "women who meet the standard and are just as able as men to fight on the front lines, and there is literally no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to serve. They made the cut, and CON has yet to offer a good reason why they shouldn't be eligible." As mentioned several times, even women who were exceptional at training could not handle combat as well as their fellow soldiers. The simple fact that estrogen levels plummet when the female body is exposed to such stress shows that women are not made for it. "So, this debate is not about the average man or average woman. Those statistics have no bearing on the outcome of this debate, because we're not talking about average people." Those statistics have a large bearing on this debate because it shows that the majority of women are physically incapable of serving in a combat position. Of the women that are capable to go through military training, very little want to actually go into combat. Why should the military change its ways (which are already effective) for a minuscule percentage of the population that wants to join? "Schools are not battlefields, and school children are not soldiers. CON's argument is as tangential to this debate as it is insufficiently grounded." School is not the military, but this study effectively shows the trend of how mixing the genders affects both, the males and females. They are distractions to each other. The military isn't all going out and fighting. Soldiers must train for long periods of time before they even step out on the battlefield, and being attracted to one of your fellow soldiers will greatly distract the individual from training. Think of the way men and women are when they are attracted to each other. They flirt, show off, and forget about the task at hand. There is NO place for this in the barracks, nor on the battlefield. "And even if a female soldier got pregnant while on duty, she could be removed from that capacity, then, and replaced with someone else." Let's imagine the following scenario. Men and women are both serving on a battleship. This provides close quarters and of course there are going to be cases of people having sex and getting pregnant. This ship now has to go off-course to drop off this pregnant woman to a location where she can safely have her child. This wasted time and energy that could have been effectively used to complete the battleship's mission. This kind of scenario not only jeopardizes the mission at hand, but also the health of the woman and child. The military should not have to waste its time and efforts taking care of women that got pregnant while serving. I'm not saying it's always the woman's fault, but it is still a situation that could easily be avoided. "He also refers to menstruation. I would like to introduce my opponent to the concept of birth control, which prevents both of those things." I read my opponent's source to support this claim and it said nothing of his claim that birth control prevents symptoms of menstruation. In fact, "birth control pills have been shown to help PMS symptoms like breast tenderness, cramps, bloating and headache in many women. However, some women experience worse symptoms or develop new emotional symptoms while taking the pill. Because many women have reported improvement in PMS symptoms while taking birth control pills, you may want to talk to your doctor about trying them to see if they work for you. If they work, you can improve your overall quality of life. Just keep in mind that they don't work for everyone." http://www.hellolife.net... This article says nothing about birth-control pills relieving mood-swings, depression or weakness. It is unnatural to skip periods and may result in health problems. http://www.owningpink.com... "I've won this debate." A pointless phrase. Saying it won't bring victory any closer. I would like to note that in reality, my opponent has very few arguments. Almost none. 1) Gender equality (which is negated by the fact that standards are lowered for women) 2) The opinion of William Denn (backed up by some vague research regarding "social sensitivity" and "group intelligence" which my opponent didn't manage to explain) Before we finish, I would like to sum up my arguments: 1) Military standards have been lowered for women, allowing for lower quality soldiers 2) Mixing the two genders will result in relationships and sex. Think about the fact that harassment of the women by the men is very likely. Also, in the case of capture, female prisoners will be treated worse by the enemy than the males (much more physical abuse and rape) 3) The cost vs. benefit will not make this process "worth it". The military would have to make adjustments to accommodate a very small, nearly negligible minority. Do not be offended by this statement, but if you do the math, you will realize that women that want to be in combat make up LESS THAN 1/1000 of a percent of the US population. http://www.army.mil... http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://dailycaller.com... 4) Symptoms of menstruation may pose a serious problem on the battlefield 5) Such extreme physical stress hurts women by dropping estrogen levels and does other kinds of bodily damage 6) Even in nature, it is the males that engage in combat This debate was not created to discriminate against anyone, but to honestly and rationally examine an issue of our age. I respect women and did not mean to offend anyone. Thank you for the good debate