Female Excemption From The Selective Service System

Intro: Unjust discrimination should not be tolerate. However, men and women aren't the same I. Sexual Dimorphism My opponent and I agree on the following a. Men are on average more physical fit than females b. Physical fitness is important in the military However, PRO thinks that individual differences are more important than gender differences. I concede that a few females are stronger and fitter than a few males. However, physical disparity between males and females are so great, that is justifiable to have the selective service act apply only to males. Lieutenant Colonel Gregor testified before the Presidential Commission: "(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile of women at West Point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men. (b) From these data, he concluded that if the Army selected those who met a nominal standard on the test, 80 percent of the women who applied could not get an Army commission" (c) Only 21 out of the initial 623 (3.4 percent) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260 points. (d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it."[9] Averages and statistical measures are important. Businesses use them constantly. If I were to choose between buying two types of products: let's say Products A, and Products B. If there was a 78% chance that Products B worked while only a 7% chance that Products A worked, then obviously I would choose Products B over Products A, even though there are a few from Product A that are better than Product B. This is why it is difficult to receive a loan if you have a low credit score. This is why you have to pay more for insurance if you get into an accident that is your fault. This is why in the military one can only become a commissioned officer with a college degree. PRO would have to show that all of these forms of 'discrimination' are unfair if he believes individual differences are more important than group differences. It is possible that someone with a low credit score can pay his/her loan while someone with a high credit score cannot. However, the laws of statistics are against them. Pro then states that based on my logic, these statistics can apply to blacks, since "blacks produce more testosterone, have less body fat, and are faster and stronger than white males on average". This would be a good argument; however the differences between blacks and whites were not as profound as the differences between males and females. Blacks only have 14% more testosterone on average than Whites while males have over 900% more testosterone then females [10]. It's like comparing the difference between Harvard, MIT, and University of Phoenix graduates. MIT might have better engineering graduates than Harvard, but both these colleges have much better engineering graduates than University of Phoenix. Pro next tries to state that the standards are not very high and states. He states he knows males that can exceed the military standards yet are frailer than women. He offers no proof that these males are "frailer" than women. As shown above, most females cannot meet the same standards as males. This statement is only in my favor, since it was males that were able to exceed the standard, not females. Finally, the SSA is designed to recruit combat soldiers, so saying that women can serve noncombat roles ruins the whole purpose of the SSA. II. Media Outrage The article on female troops' death had a tone of disgust. There is little media outrage since the women death rate is small compared to total deaths. If the death rate of women were higher, there would be a greater media outrage. I only express that the moral foundation of others are not supported by logic, only emotional programming. While Pro might think otherwise, moral truths are far different from scientific truths. Nonetheless, that still does not change the fact that people view that the life of a women (especially of fertile age) as more valuable as men in society. III. Unit Cohesion and Combat Effectiveness Right now, Middle Eastern terrorist are a great threat. The war in Iran is a strong possibility [11]. Even in western society, there is still a stigma against losing against women [12]. Pro then sets up a false dichotomy on whether it is better to have enemy combatants killed rather than not engage in them at all since there were no female combatants. We would still have troops combatants if there were no female combatants. I will explain this point later. However, it would be much better if they surrender, since less allied soldiers would die, and fewer resources would be expended in battle. Next PRO believes that we should not cater to soldier's bias. However no matter how much soldiers are trained, you cannot reprogram the emotional circuits for mating and reproduction. It is the BOP of my opponent to show otherwise. Extend analysis that females' death and injured decreases morale, and cause soldiers to act irrationally, harming the mission [13]. Practicality and Efficiency: PRO states that by allowing women into the SSA, you double the size of potential recruits. There is an error in this logic. This does not make the military twice as good. Female soldiers in combat decrease morale both for combatants and civilians, increase additional expenses for female needs, are not as fit as male soldiers, are a burden and distraction to soldiers, and in general decrease the efficiency of the overall unit. PRO seems to forget that people are needed in the home frontier. Sun Tzu, author of the Art of War, stresses the importance of resource management and keeping the economy going during times of war. "The expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men."[14] It is not about winning battles, but managing resources which is important to war.Women would be much better off farming land, manufacturing supplies for soldiers, and providing goods and services needed to keep the economy running than actually fighting in wars. In World War II, women were sent to work and this was just as necessary and honarable as soldiers fighting[15] The SSA is designed specifically for those ages 18-25; the age men are at their potential peak fitness. This is why they are drafted. This has been a sufficient amount in previous wars. Based on PROS logic, we should send everyone to war, including the elderly and the minors. Fairness and Civil Equality: PRO seems to suggest that since women have been given more rights and responsibilities, they should also register for the SSA. This simply does not follow. Females are mentally competent, so they should not be denied the right to vote, education, job opportunities, etc. The demands for civilian life are completely different from the demands from military life, especially as a combatant soldier. This same logic applies to why senior citizens are not eligible for conscription. In the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, the SSA constitutionality was questioned due to "gender discrimination". However, it was considered constitutional based on the following majority opinion: "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."[16] Even, the Equal Opportunity act can reject those with physical impairments if it is an undue hardship that causes a financial restrain. Well in war, resources are scarce and can be allocated efficiently by having women work rather than fight