Women serving in combat

My opponent continually advocates for the well-being of female combatants. But I have to ask how it is the least bit his right to prevent someone from doing something she wants to do, knowing the risks, just because it is his opinion that it is not in her best interests. My opponent never really refutes any of my contentions, just tries to outweigh them, and for his first and last, he brings up a rather weak and lacking defense. His argument for pregnancy can be shown to be both outweighed and faulty, as well as lacking in proof. Performance of combat duties/physical/mental strength Con first brings up the fact that women are more likely to suffer injury. I find this largely irrelevant, as the possibility of suffering injury is just one of the many risks you take when joining the military.[1] And a minor risk compared to everything else at that. If a woman wants to take this risk there is no reason not to let her. My opponent is not in charge of the well-being of woman combatants. The military decided that 42 push-ups is enough for a woman. But why would they put men at those standards when men could be even more physically fit? 42 push-ups would be enough for a man, or else they wouldn't make women do that little, but if men can do more, then that they might as well make them. If a man can't do as much as required he obviously hasn't pushed himself enough. In answer to my proving that woman are more mentally capable in some areas than men, my opponent does not really refute anything. He points out one area where men are superior mentally, and that is stress. Men and women are trained to handle stress,[2][3] and ways such as the use of dogs are used as methods for them to deal with it,[4] so cons point already falls. Con makes us think that I said women are better leaders when in reality all I said was that they have certain leadership qualities men do not possess. Furthermore my opponent bluntly states that my point does not benefit my case. I would like to know how? 1. In the last round I showed women were able to handle anger better. Something that can clearly be a overwhelming factor under the heat of battle. 2. I showed that women have certain leadership qualities men don't have. Leadership is a major attribute in battle. It does not matter that men also have some leadership abilities women don't have. The fact that both are different, brings variety. Without women, the military would be lacking in certain leadership qualities. 3. I showed that women are relationship builders and have a well developed ability to read emotions. It would quite obviously raise the morale for troops to have someone like this. 4. I also showed that women aren't afraid to speak their mind, and encourage organization and others opinions. [5][6] Pregnancy When we look at my opponents source however we see that "As soon as the military knows a soldier is pregnant, she is immediately sent home."[7] Thus women are punished. Furthermore my opponent has never substantially planted the fact that pregnancy is currently a problem. His one source he showed to do so, was way outdated, and even after my mentioning that, he has not shown that this is now a problem. We also see that this General in my opponents source does not in any way argue that women should not serve in combat, but instead talks about how the problem should be solved, and how valuable women are in combat. If this General who is in command of all these troops does not think there is a currently a problem big enough to send all these troops home, I don't see how our opinion is better than his. Here is what Cucolo says 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. [8] If women are so valuable according to this general, why would we want them sent home? My opponents argument has been easily negated. "To date, he said, there have been eight cases of women getting pregnant while deployed under his command." This is obviously not a huge problem. And it is certainly not nearly enough of a problem to have all these women sent home. Also my last point for this round outweighs my opponents objections. Sending thousands of women home would have a much much more major impact than sending the few who get pregnant home. III. Female POW's Con barely gives a defense. He states that it does not only affect the woman when they are captured. Well I certainly agree; it would affect their family too. But that is the same with any POW, male or female. Con thinks that the military are put into an uncomfortable situation. I don't see how that's even relevant. Why is it so different for women? Men get tortured too. Men even get rapped as well. Not just women. Furthermore con just assumes that all female prisoners of war are brutally rapped and abused. Does he assume everyone that America fights are animals? Con gives insufficient reasoning for us to believe that men would do specifically blatantly foolish things to save women from capture. Second of all I don't see why anyone would discourage loyalty and protective love, especially in the military. Cons point is unconvincing. I.) My opponent tries to wave away the issue of sexism, but clearly there are no sound arguments for my opponents case. All have been safely refuted. If America suddenly discharged thousands of women combatants without any major reason evident for doing so, I don't see how that would not look sexist. My opponent also does not address the fact that women serving in the military advances America as a free nation, and taking away those rights brings them backwards. II.) Women having to do less in the physical test has already been addressed, but the military deem these women capable of fighting. I trust that their decision was logically reasoned. There is no evidence that 42-pushups is too little. III.) //The military should take away a woman's possibility of getting a military job, because, as my argument suggests, women should not serve in combat// All my opponent does is try to outweigh this. He does not refute that women have less job possibilities. IV.) //The opponent states differences between men's and women's mental capabilities, but does not show how they specifically benefit the military// I thought it was obvious, but I have now showed them in my rebuttal to my opponents first contention. V.) One last important point, that I did not mention last round. My opponent is advocating for the firing of thousands of women. In other words my opponent thinks that women should not be able to have this job, and thus is arguing that thousands of female combatants should be discharged. This is completely unfair that these women should be allowed to serve, then suddenly discharged right in the middle of their service. Not only is it unfair but can you imagine the huge impact that would have? My opponent argues that women leaving because of pregnancy brings morale down. If he thinks that, it is impossible for him to refute the fact that thousands of women being dismissed would have a much more major negative impact. [1] http://amrog.hubpages.com... [2] http://www.au.af.mil... [3] http://www.washingtontimes.com... [4] http://www.digtriad.com... [5] http://abcnews.go.com... [6] http://www.hrmreport.com... [7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [8] http://articles.cnn.com...