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

As we begin the rebuttal round, I wish to point out that my opponent already gave a rebuttal rather than an opening argument. Since Con failed to build their own case, I am now forced rebut their rebuttal. My opponent repeatedly cites that I apply my arguments selectively to women. This should not be a surprise. We are discussing the issue of women in the infantry, and therefore readers should expect arguments to specifically apply to women being in the infantry. If Con would like to discuss Christians, Homosexuals, Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Whites, or Blacks in the military they should create a new debate, as these are all separate topics. For my part, I will continue to focus on the topic at hand. Con implies this is yet another example of the “saga of men” seeking to deny women their rights. By definition however, a right can only be denied to someone who innately possess that right in the first place. All people, whether male OR female, do not have a universal right to serve in the Infantry or Special Forces. People are kicked out or denied entry all the time for things like not meeting selection criteria, ASVAB test scores, rank, age, physical fitness, vision, prior police records, etc… If serving is an innate right this would be considered discrimination of the highest degree, but it is not. Anyone who does not increase the effectiveness of the unit is denied participation. Effectiveness is the central issue. The combat arms exist to fight and win the nation’s wars, period. To do so they must ensure they put the strongest, fastest, most cohesive, and most effective units on the battlefield. My central argument remains unchallenged by Con – if a policy does not make the Infantry more effective, one must question the merits of that policy. Con fixates on “pooping into bags” but seems to miss the larger point. The point is not whether women should take baby wipe showers, it is that naked women are sexually distracting to most men and this fact has a strong potential to decrease unit effectiveness. Of course I do not accept that same argument when applied to men because it does not apply within genders, it applies between them. We as a society accept this as true. There are men’s restrooms and women’s restrooms, men’s showers and women’s showers, men’s locker rooms and women’s locker rooms, etc… Why? Because sexual distraction and lack of privacy between genders can create obvious problems. These problems are further intensified in combat where the stakes are life and death. Once again I ask, how does eliminating sexual privacy contribute to unit effectiveness? To answer the final rebut, I will simply quote Con’s own words: “if we grant that in certain cases in the name of expediency that women should not be involved in a certain way in those missions how does this justify that therefore that woman should be banned…?” If women should not be involved in those missions, then that is the justification! As always it’s a question of effectiveness. You are not effective if members of your unit cannot participate in missions. Mentioning Protestants, Catholics, Whites, Blacks, Homosexuals, etc… are poor examples because these groups are not asked to wear burkas and sit in different rooms. None of these examples are as much of a cultural barrier to communication as gender. Again, I don’t believe it’s morally right but it is true. Since Con already gave a rebuttal in Round 2, I hope they will take the time here to develop their case and present their own arguments. Specifically, I look forward to seeing an answer to the fundamental question – how does integrating females enhance unit effectiveness?