Women in combat

I'm going to rebut some of the things CON's said, and then offer some closing remarks. It's been fun, Russian! CON calls my rebuttal biased. Well, obviously. This is a debate, and I'm making a case. The question of the hour, however, is who the judge thinks should win. CON has lost the point on combat readiness, because I've offered sufficient evidence that some women are physically capable of serving which he cannot disprove. Even if it is the case that most women would not be able to meet the physical demands of combat, that is not a reason to exclude ALL women from combat as CON seeks. If some women are just as able as men, why should they not serve? CON's reasoning is pretty simple: women should not be in combat because women cannot handle combat -and yet he's offered no reason why women are uniquely unsuited for combat then men. I'm sure that some women probably couldn't, as I know many men can't -because combat is something that would take a huge physical and psychological toll on anyone. CON has furthermore in no way shown that women are emotionally unprepared to fight in combat than men, and his patriarchal argument about women's being predisposed to mood swings is sexist and offensive. What CON hasn't done is offer any reason why women are uniquely unsuited for combat, and why only men are. Moreover, CON concedes that at some women (perhaps less than 8% of all women) want to serve in combat -which is especially striking given that CON would like to paternalistically prevent them from serving their country. When he brings up estrogen levels, he has no warrant for why estrogen makes women unsuited for combat. When he talks about sex, he is assuming that men are not already sexual beings. Even in the absence of women, men still do all kinds of sexual things. For example, male on male sexual assault in the military is staggering. Indeed, "more men than women were victims of sexual assault" by male assailants. (1) To his other example about women on submarines, that problem is avoided by requiring women who serve in combat positions to take birth control. Upon evaluating the preponderance of evidence, women are less of a sexual problem in the military than other men! As such, CON's argument that women should not serve because they are going to sexually distract men is moot. In closing, I want to reiterate my two central points: women are able to serve in combat roles, and it is in the military's best interest to have them serve, as such. No one is suggesting that we lower the standard for qualification for combat roles. Rather, I am only arguing that those women who can meet the current standard should be allowed to serve. CON has no response to either of those points, just as he has no evidence that women are uniquely unable to serve in combat roles. He has also failed to in any way meaningfully counter the argument I cited from William Denn, an Army captain and intelligence officer who led soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a graduate student in public policy at Harvard"s Kennedy School of Government, that allowing women to serve in combat positions would actually strengthen the military because of the unique level of social sensitivity that women would bring to the modern battlefield. Indeed, bringing women into combat roles "could mean the difference between a mission"s success or failure, with lives in the balance." (2) Many thanks again to all judges. Do vote PRO. Sources: 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...