Female Excemption From The Selective Service System

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent for his reply. I think it touches on many important points. However, while my opponent has made valid points against some of my arguments, he has neglected others. Because I feel my opening statement in the previous round adequately explained the debate, I am going to move right in to the arguments. Argument One: Sexual Dimorphism I will first note that I made no mention of BMI, only pure size in my discussion. Larger people can carry weight more easily than smaller people of the same fitness. In absolutely no way do I dispute that males are physically superior to females in most regards on average. However, there is a considerable degree of divergence between different individuals in this regard. Both males and females who are too physically frail or weak for military service should not be required to serve under Selective Service. This does not mean that female professional athletes are inferior to average males in these traits and are therefore somehow less useful for military service simply because others of their sex tend to be. I do not mean to imply that physical fitness is not important to the military, only that women are not so physical inferior as not to be useful. The standards that males must meet to graduate from basic training are not very high to begin with (35 push-ups and a 20:06 two-mile run are the minimum) [6]. These tests don't even make a lot of sense; there are males on my cross country team who could do 70 push-ups and run 10:03 but are much smaller and frailer than many women. It is true that upper-body strength is extremely important in the military, but it is not so clear cut as saying that men have it and women don't. Some women have above average traits for their sex and some men have below average traits for their sex. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make one standard for everyone? I would also like to point out that every one of my opponent's points could be used to argue that only blacks should be eligible for Selective Service. Black males produce more testosterone, have less body fat, and are faster and stronger than white males on average [7][8]. This also applies to my opponent's psychological argument: black males tend to exhibit more violent behavior than white males [8]. Of course, we know that these differences are not important on a case by case basis and that they don't lead to the preposterous conclusion that only black people should be required to fight in the military. We simply set the same standards, and if more blacks reach those standards because of genetics then that's just how it is. My opponent's arguments also do not explain why women cannot serve noncombat roles. While I think women who display excellent physical performance could serve combat roles, I agree that they should primarily be given support roles (as should weaker people in general). There is no reason why women can't drive supple trucks, prepare food, repair equipment, treat wounded soldiers, or do any other support role. Remember, men drafted by Selective Service can elect to serve in a noncombat position if they are opposed to violence [5]. Counterargument: Unit Cohesion and Combat Effectiveness The first point my opponent makes is that Islamic militants are less likely to surrender to female troops. I would like to note that we are debating about the SSS, and it is unlikely that a draft would be called to eliminate Middle Eastern terrorist cells. In a war against a trained military unit or in a slightly more liberal country than Afghanistan (even Iran) it is probable that this would play less of a role. In any case, is having enemy combatants killed rather than surrendering worse than not engaging them at all because the female soldiers were not present to engage them? All women that aren't sent into battle aren't automatically replaced by men; women add to the size of the army. On the next point, it is inappropriate to discriminate against people simply because soldiers have certain biases. There was a struggle to integrate blacks into the army in the early 20th century, but now people of all races fight side by side without issue. Recent, DADT was repealed and homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military openly. While the feelings of those in the military should be respected, bigotry should not be catered to. The US Army should continue its tradition of holding its troops to the highest professional standards and not tolerate, let alone give in to, sexist attitudes. Counterargument: Media Outrage The problem that my opponent poses does not seem realistic. Eighty-two women have died in the war in Iraq and I have not noticed anything that could be called a "media outrage" [9]. I don't think anyone is shocked by the fact that women are killed in war, and my opponent has not backed this claim up with a source. In any case, the belief that women are more valuable than men should not be conceded as true or reinforced by adjusting policy to cater to people's biases and dispositions. This belief is a relic of a time when females were needed to maintain the population, and it must be discarded to move society forward. My opponent seems to suggest that what most people think is true is more important than what is true. Well, that seems grounds for dismissing evolution, special relativity, and quantum mechanics just because uneducated people don't understand them. Just as it is irresponsible to make scientific judgments based on the opinions of those who go off their gut instinct and lack the proper training to understand the topic, it is likewise irresponsible to make moral judgments this way. Dropped Arguments: My opponent completely dropped the argument on civil equality and fairness, which I think is pivotal to the debate. The argument on practically and efficiency has been partially dropped. My opponent suggests that because some male soldiers are sexist and do not behave appropriately toward women, we should accommodate their problems by excluding women from the armed forces. I was not aware that the US military was in the business of tolerating misconduct, and a little extra brawn certain doesn't make male soldiers who cannot even meet the military's professional standards more useful than female soldiers who can. The advantages to drafting women that I proposed have not been addressed. However, I will add another point. Encouraging women to serve in the military and requiring them to participate in the SSS will improve social attitudes toward women and help to solve many of the problems my opponent described. Women should be treated as competent members of society and not as frail children to be coddled and protected. The fact that society sets lower expectations for women is a product of this sexist belief, and government policy should seek to reduce rather than encourage these attitudes. Conclusion: In order for the SSS to truly fail at its goal by recruiting women, the associated problems would have to outweigh the advantage of doubling the number of potential draftees. This is virtually inconceivable. In any case, this issue is not entirely about combat effectiveness. Unless there is a World War III, it may very well never again be necessary to call a draft. If there is a war that truly taxes the US military, then a reasonable step in pulling out all the stops to win would be to draft women. More importantly, though, this is a matter of principle. Women in the United States vote, run businesses, develop technology, and run the government. They have all the privileges of members of society and they make many contributions, so why should they be exempt from some of their civic responsibilities on the basis of physical traits that don't apply uniformly and outdated social attitudes? Sources: Links posted in the comments section for lack of room. If my opponent wishes to do this in the follow rounds, I would consider that fair. His previous argument was only 7000 characters, so this is not unfair to him.