Women serving in combat

Mostly I will just offer counter rebuttals, point out all the dropped points, and summarize. Performance of combat duties/physical/mental strength I. ) My opponent continues to advocate for women's well-being. If women want to take the risk of getting injured let them! !! !! II. ) My opponent does absolutely nothing to show that someone with the ability to do 42 push ups are not fit for combat. Instead he just reverts weak speculations. If women are so weak, why not show a case where a women's strength failed her in combat? III. ) Con brings absolutely no rebuttal to the fact that women are superior to men in certain mental aspects. All he does is spout some nonsense about overgeneralized personality traits and the completely false statement that they have been invalidated during this debate. As a debater I respect my opponent for arguing every point. But I don't think it is possible to refute this. IV. ) As I showed in the last round, contradictory to my opponents belief that women are fairly useless in battle, General Cucolo thinks they are very useful and important. I will reassert my (unaddressed) quote. I can’t tell you how valuable my female soldiers are,” Cucolo said. “They fly helicopters. They run satellites. They’re mechanics. They’re medics. Some of the best intelligence analysts I have happen to be female. Pregnancy At the beginning of this debate I thought this to be quite a good point by my opponent, and the only good point my opponent has really put forth. But I would very much like to stress to the viewers that this has been thoroughly rebutted. My opponent also barely makes any effort in this round to defend it. Please make special note of the following. I. ) As con has stated, he clearly thinks this is a problem because of the fact that women leaving the battle field disrupts readiness and lessons morale. This at first seems convincing, but let us consider something else. My opponent is advocating for the release of THOUSANDS of military women. Let me ask this, what is worse on morale, eight women leaving due to pregnancy, or thousands of women leaving due to a governments decision that they weren't fit to fight? ? This point alone so obviously refutes my opponents argument. II. ) My opponent has STILL not established any evidence whatsoever that this is a big problem. His only source was way outdated and even after my pointing that out my opponent has for some reason refrained from offering the slightest bit of proof. III. ) My opponents asks why they would make a rule against it if it wasn't a problem. Well first off, my opponent would have to prove that this is a big problem not simply a problem. This is a minor problem, which is all my opponent has showed. A minor problem that is easily outweighed. We should also remember that the man who made the rule, also claims that his women combatants are very valuable to him. He does not at all advocate my opponents case. IV. ) My opponent has not given a single answer during this debate to the fact that General Cucolo holds his female combatants in high regard. He is, I'm sure, a proponent of women serving in combat. And he, being the General of thousands of troops, has a much more important opinion than mine or my opponents. V. ) My opponent ignores my proof that this is not a very big problem at all. (Only eight pregnancy cases) VI. ) My opponent has ignored my proof that women do get punished if found pregnant. Female POW's I. ) My opponent has not refuted at all the fact that women have the right to take these risks if she wants too. II. ) My opponent ignores the fact that men can get rapped too. III. ) Con now makes the argument that some people hold a low view on women and thus would treat them badly. Well some countries hold women with more respect for their gender and would make sure to treat them better than they would treat men, so my opponents argument falls. IV. ) I notice my opponent drops the argument that the military would be put into an awkward position. ____________________ I. ) My opponent still thinks men being protective of women is a bad thing. He ignores my question as too why we would discourage loyalty and protective love. II. ) Job possibilities is still a point in my favor. Putting cons case into place would remove job possibilities for women. My opponent can't refute that. Not at all irrelevant. III. ) Con again weakly tries to refute my argument that women have some superior mental capabilities. He says no studies have been shown as too how these traits would specifically benefit the military. After showing women's superior mental capabilities, I logically showed how they could benefit the military both tactically and for morale. Con gives no refutation to my arguments. He also, after my refuting it, drops his argument that men are better at handling stress. IV. ) My opponent drops my sexism argument. V. ) Con tries to refute my last point, by saying that this debate is not about the side-effects, of his proposition. I contend that it surely is partly, and would be unfair for it not to be. My point still stands that firing thousands of women is clearly not a viable option. Why you should vote pro Women should be allowed to serve in the military because it causes little problems and they are capable enough. It is their right to take risks for the country they love. Physical strength is not a problem because the military make sure they are fit. Women are also superior to men in a number of mental aspects, that the military do not train or test. Pregnancy is easily outweighed with my last point, suffers a lack of evidence, and is proven to be only a small problem. Women choose to take the risk of being a POW. It's up too them, not anyone else. Firing thousands of women just because the government think them unfit to fight is clearly not an option, and lastly letting women being allowed to serve advances America as a free nation, and taking away this right would do the opposite.