Women should be removed from combat roles.

I see what you mean, but the numbers stay relative to each other. And you seem to be under the impression that men and women train on the same level. Nonsense. The standards are very much apart. And no, the military does not just take the best, as you would assert, not with the floodgates that have been thrown open by congress and the recent presidential administration. And recruits are taken from the general populace, so its absurd to think the numbers and stats have no value to this debate. I think they have perfect relevance, and speaking of relevance, it is a matter of relativity. Women, relative to men, will always be physically below men as far as capability. Like I said earlier, there are extreme circumstances where there are women who can compete on the lower scale of male standards, but it does not warrant opening up the combat role to all females. My logic. The stats apply to the general populace. Recruits of both genders are pulled from the general populace. Women, according to the stats, have lower physical capability. Therefore they are trained at a lower standard than men. Logically, they come out of training at a lower standard then men, regardless of the change in stats after the fact. This is exactly how the military recruiting and training works. This is not some scenario I thought up, but rather a simplified version of training and its results. Therefore, women (before or after training) will be less physiologically capable than men (before or after training). Women, relative to men, will always be less capable in regards to physical prowess (excluding the rare instances). Moving on. Think of a squad. They have just been deployed. They are caught up in a fire-fight. There is one woman in the team, the rest are men. The woman, who is less physically and psychologically adept in combat, is not pulling the same weight as the others. The men, who are picking up the slack, are put in a higher amount of danger due to carrying more gear or performing more in combat due to picking up this slack from the woman (who we have stated will almost always be less capable than a man). While performing in this elevated state of vulnerability, one of the group is killed. Think of a squad or any unit in the armed forces as a chain. They are only as capable as their weakest link (in this case the woman). As soon as it breaks, the rest of the force is thrown in danger or put in disarray. Either that, or the military is forced to reduce operations to a minimum in order to avoid such happenings caused by a failure of personnel, in this case a woman, and will almost always be a woman as long as they are serving on the front line. Women, again, are a liability. So ask yourself again, are lives worth the introduction of gender equality into warfare? And again, I emphasize, women and men, even post-training, are not equal, because the armed forces have different standards for them both, the female standards being the lower. They therefore and are a liability in combat. After thought, this completely eluded me, how do you think a woman would perform on her period? And what would it cost to supply hygiene supplements needed to exclusively keep a woman in peak condition? How about the logistics of getting those to troops. Eliminate women, you eliminate all sorts of logistical havoc caused by their special needs. Either that, or neuter them, which I am sure you do not stand for and neither do I, it is purely hypothetical. Even then, a woman still needs certain amenities that a man does not. Again, a liability. If these certain supplies cannot be taken to a woman on the front line, then she is not in peak fighting capability, and therefore is a liability. If she needs them to be carried with the team or unit, and it adds extra weight, then she is a liability. Women, no matter how you put it, are and always will be a liability in combat. I would also like to point out that my opponent has offered only one justification or even rebuttal to one of my many points, nothing more. I apologize, I have no qualms with this or how you conduct yourself, and I don't try to sound arrogant, I just wish to evoke a more enjoyable and "enlightening" debate.