The U.S. Military Infantry and Special Forces should remain closed to women

Shifting the burdenPro claims. .. " As such, I maintain that Con has failed to convincingly argue how integrating females would not decrease the effectiveness of these vital units"This is shifting the burden on Pros part. .. " In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. That is, if a person says that the moon is made of cheese, then it is up to that person to support this assertion. Demanding that the other party demonstrate that the moon is not made of cheese would constitute shifting the burden of proof. " [1]Arguments used selectively on women/special pleadingPro has tried all sorts of justifications to try ban women. Trouble is those justifications if accepted could also be used to ban other groups such as christians, homosexuals, atheists, etc etc. Pro doesn't accept that christians should be banned because the military will encounter people who hold christians in low regard, yet he argues that women should be banned because the military will encounter people who hold women in low regard. Pro doesn't accept that atheists should be banned cause they might cause a distraction, Yet he argues that women should be banned because they might cause a distraction. Pro doesn't accept that men should be banned cause they might cause a sexual distraction to women, yet he argues that women should be banned cause they might cause a sexual distraction. That's the logical inconsistency of Pros argument here, that is the special pleading against women. Allowing women "invites" sexual assault ? Consider where Pro says. .. " This leads to sexual distraction which can destroy cohesion and only invites the epidemic of sexual assault in the military to worsen. "But why would there be an epidemic of sexual assault by allowing women ? Is the infantry/special forces made up by rapists ? Here is the point, if in your infantry/special forces have people who would commit such acts, ya know what, the solution isn't to ban women, maybe, just maybe, the men who would commit sexual assaults shouldn't be there in the first place. Military recruitment/creating unitsPro is quite insistent that the military be able to make the best units possible. I pointed out that Pros position here is counter productive in that area since the military can only create units from males, and females are banned regardless of what ever else they bring to the table. Pros response here had something to do with professional sports such as hockey and football teams that are separated by gender. Now how does this refute my argument in this area ? Pro never explained how. As such I claim that my argument in this area has gone unrefuted. ClosingFirst concerning the positive case for why women should be allowed in the infantry/special forces. Those being that discrimination that is not justified is wrongful and not allowing women as advocated by Pro is counter productive when trying to make the best units possible. It should be noted it doesn't matter if these arguments fail, as the burden was on Pro to justify banning women. So how did Pro go about justifying banning women ? I maintain that Pro has used justifications to ban women from the infantry/special forces, But those justifications if accepted could also be used to justify banning other groups, Pro doesn't accept using those same justifications for banning other groups yet still uses them to justify banning women, this is the logical inconsistency in his argument. I maintain that Pro arguments was shown faulty in light of my objections. I ask the vote go to the Con. I thank Pro for the debate. Sources[1] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...