Female Excemption From The Selective Service System

Intro: Thanks to my opponent for a great debate. //Sexual Dimorphism// CON's thinks that physical fitness should be tested individually and those that do not achieve a satisfactory level of physical standard should not be let into the military. However, he missed the point that one simply cannot test physical fitness on in individual level, at least not until after training. Many people live a very sedentary lifestyle. People spend time watching television, on computer, and an office job. Many people simply do not work out. I used to run a 5k in under 17 minutes yet due to my sedentary lifestyle it now takes me 23 minutes. The question: How does one know one's true innate level of endurance, and strength? One cannot. Modern society does not test one's potential. The difference in physical fitness between two persons might be lifestyle, not innate ability. The initial physical fitness test to get into the military is a lot easier then the physical fitness test needed to graduate from military boot camp [1]. There is no good way to test how physically fit a soldier will be. The difference level of fitness for those of different height, race is nominally small compared to the differences between gender and age. Thus the most practical option to choose who should be trained and who should not is to train males between the age of 18-5, the age they are at their physical peak. Hence, why the SSA recruits males between the age of 18-25. CON also seems to question the physical fitness standards of the military, stating its more concerned with general fitness than pure strength and size. However, what the military is concerned about is muscular endurance, hence why there is no weight lifting standard. It takes a lot of resources to train soldiers, and based on the data I researched in previous rounds, very few women would be able to pass the physical requirements if they were held to the same standard as males. It is a matter of statistics. It's a waste of resources for women to be recruited in the military if they have a low success rate compared to males. It would also be highly effective if soldiers were able to perform combat skills since in the military ones purpose is to fight battles. I would prefer a soldier who could fight and perform their MOS, rather than either or. //Media Outrage// We agree that people value the lives of women more than the lives of men and that a stronger media response would occur due to these deaths. However, my opponent believes that equality and fairness should be prioritized. However, CON seems to underestimate the importance of the media, and how it affects whether one wins a war or loses it. We are pulling out of Iraq due to the media's opposition to the war. Even if our sense of morality is illogical, does not mean it is unimportant. This undermines the whole system of democracy, in which laws our based on our sense of values and morality. //Unit Cohesion and Combat Effectiveness// However, our troop our already in Afghanistan. A war in Iran would cause us to use more troops. My opponent still does not get the point that the value of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness is more important then any ideals of fairness. Economic resources is the limiting factor in warfare, not the size of the military. This is what my opponent does not seem to understand. My opponent also does not seem to understand that human instincts play an important role. The SSA is designed to win wars. The whole system, is unfair to begin with since one is forced to do acts against one's will. If you allow women into combat under the SSA, you might as well just remove the SSA in general, since the military becomes less effective with the act in place, not more. It's not fair that women have to go through periods and pregnancy while males do not, yet should we create a system to simulate these events for males in the interest of 'fairness and equality'? No, because there is no purpose. Same applies here. There is no purpose for women to fight in wars, since they are essential more harm then good. You can label me a sexist all you want, that does not change the data I presented. //Practicality and Efficiency// CON's problem is that you cannot now measure the nominal standard, until after boot camp, as I explained earlier. This wastes resources. Even if the women are capable of combat, it still faces the problem of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness, an issue my opponent seemed to dodge. Also, if we are in a situation in which the SSA is needed, obviously we are also in a state where economic resources are needed. Economic resources are the limiting factor, not soldiers. By sending soldiers to war, your essential reducing the amount of people available for work, thus reducing GDP. It's not just the cost of tampons. Essential new facilities need to be made for women, women have different medical needs, etc. These expenses become very significant. Argument Five: Civil Equality However, even those of older age are more fit then some of younger age. In fact, middle age men actually have an equal physical assessment as middle age females. Some children are mentally competent enough to serve in the military. Actually, there are children soldiers right now as we speak[3]. Where does one draw the line? If one accepts that there are children mental competent to serve in war, and older people physical fit enough to fight in war, then all of CON's logic can be tossed aside and basically anybody should be selected into the military. However, these groups are obviously not part of the SSA the same reason why women are not in the SSA. I have explained earlier of why women should not serve in combat roles. In war, one would prefer if a person could fight during combat since during war there is always the possibility of combat. Even in boot camp, everyone is trained to use a gun. There's no reason why military soldiers can not both be able to fix a tank and fight in combat also. It makes one more effective as a soldier. Conclusion: My opponent seems to believe that fairness and equality is more important then winning war or increasing the strength of our military. It isn't. By allowing women to enter the SSA, it is harming the military as a whole and poses a huge hazard. The SSA isn't fair to begin with? How is forcing people to fight a war and possible die fair? It isn't. I thank my opponent for the debate. However, I believe CON should lose points on source since I was unable to see the sources from the previous rounds, thus making it difficult to confirm the information.