Women in combat

Once more, many thanks to all judges and others who read this debate as well as to my opponent for instigating it. I'm going to rebut my opponent's case, and then say a few words about my arguments in the earlier round as they apply to each argument that he made. But before I do that, I want to remark that while I take my opponent at his word that he does not believe himself to be a sexist, that the position he holds is unavoidably sexist because it discriminates on the basis of sex. I also want to outline the conditions for my winning this debate. If by the end of this debate you are persuaded that those women like Cadet Madeline Kenyon who can meet the existing standard for combat readiness should be allowed to serve in combat positions, then I am winning this debate. If, however, you are persuaded by my opponent that all women, without regard to their individual abilities and even if they are physically capable of meeting the physical demands of combat, should be discriminated against on the basis of their being female and excluded from combat positions, then you should vote for my opponent. My opponent's rebuttals fail for a number of reasons; most of them due to his fundamental misunderstanding of what women in combat roles means. I am not arguing, as he claims, that all women are physically capable of serving in combat roles. That would be absurd, because obviously not all women (nor all men) are physically capable of serving in combat. What I am arguing is that those women who are capable of meeting the standard for combat readiness should be allowed to serve in combat roles. This does not mean that standards for combat readiness (like the West Point obstacle course) should be lowered to accommodate for women, but rather that only those women who can demonstrate their physical aptitude should not be rendered ineligible on the basis that they are female -which is the status quo. So, when CON argues that some women are physically incapable of meeting the demands of combat, he's stating a fact but he's not advancing his argument because that point is neither in dispute nor does it advance his argument. It should be noted that not all women are going to be able to make the cut, and that's ok. What's not ok is excluding women who meet the standard from combat roles on the basis that they are female -but that's the case that my opponent has to argue in order to win this debate. CON's second effort to maintain institutional discrimination against women is equally unsuccessful. He claims that "the military is not made to help genders be equal" but rather "is made to effectively protect and help a nation achieve its goals." I agree, but I would add that the military is also not made to institutionally discriminate against half of its population. Moreover, if our nation's military's purpose is to achieve various military goals, then two implications follow: first, military positions should be filled on the basis of merit rather than who has a penis and who has a vagina, and second, the military should do all that it can to strengthen its strategic advantage. As I argued, citing Willian Denn above, having women in combat roles would strengthen the military. CON claims that he read Denn's article, and asserts that Denn had "no research or data to support" his claim -which is just false. Says Denn: "Recent studies from Harvard Business School and MIT show that "group intelligence" of an organization rises when women are on teams. Women bring a unique level of "social sensitivity," the ability to read the emotions of other people. On today"s complex battlefields, social sensitivity is a crucial skill for military professionals....Having women in our platoon would have dramatically increased our ability to elicit critical intelligence. This could mean the difference between a mission"s success or failure, with lives in the balance. Since 2011, U.S. Special Operations forces in Afghanistan have embedded all-female cultural support teams in their units. The program has been lauded by commanders for gaining access to the 50 percent of the Afghan population who have previously been inaccessible. Commanders are looking to deploy these teams to support operations in Africa. Army operations will probably require the same skill sets needed in Iraq and Afghanistan that women are adept at providing." The studies Denn cites can be found here: http://hbr.org... CON attempts and fails to gain ground for his case by claiming that I've offered an insufficient number of examples to support the notion that women should not be excluded from combat roles on the basis of their being female because five examples are not enough "to draw valid conclusions." But, my opponent either misunderstands my burden or is out of touch with this debate. It is not my burden to prove that all women should be allowed to serve in combat. It is only my responsibility to show that those women who can meet the standard for combat readiness should not be excluded on the basis of their being female. I've given examples of women who meet the standard and are just as able as men to fight on the front lines, and there is literally no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to serve. They made the cut, and CON has yet to offer a good reason why they shouldn't be eligible. So, this debate is not about the average man or average woman. Those statistics have no bearing on the outcome of this debate, because we're not talking about average people. We're talking about soldiers, and whether those women who are physically able to serve in combat should be excluded on the basis of their being female. CON's argument about mixing genders is based on biased research from an organization whose purpose is to segregate school classrooms on the basis of gender. Schools are not battlefields, and school children are not soldiers. CON's argument is as tangential to this debate as it is insufficiently grounded. CON claims that because 1/10 women get pregnant while in the military, they should not be allowed to serve in combat roles. He also refers to menstruation. I would like to introduce my opponent to the concept of birth control, which prevents both of those things. (1) And even if a female soldier got pregnant while on duty, she could be removed from that capacity, then, and replaced with someone else. That's not a reason to keep women who are not pregnant out of combat. In sum, my opponent has failed to produce any reason at all why women who are physically able to serve in combat roles should be excluded on the basis of their being female. Therefore, I've won this debate. (1) http://www.webmd.com...