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

Arguments used selectively on women/special pleadingConsider where Pro says. .. "My opponent accuses me of special pleading by asking for a “’special case’ or an exception to their rules. ” I fail to see how talking about women in a debate about women in the infantry is a special case"It's not the talking about women that is the special pleading, it is that in order to deny women into the infantry/special forces you have relied on various justifications such privacy, sexual privacy, the military dealing with groups who hold another group in low regard to support your case against woman being allowed in the infantry/special forces. The trouble is you don't accept those same justifications when it comes to denying other groups. That is the logical inconsistency of your argument, that's is the raw deal you give women in your argument, that is why I charge you of engaging in special pleading. Sexist policy got their first so we winConsider where Pro says. .. "Con asks a strange question here:“Why isn't it the men who are denied entry into the Special Forces because they might be too [sexually] distracting to some woman? Why does the argument here only work one way? ”. .. .. . It’s because the argument only APPLIES one way! This may be a valid question if men were seeking entry into an all-female force, but they are not. It’s the other way around. How can men be sexually distracting to women who aren’t there? Once again, Con asks a hypothetical question that doesn’t apply to this debate. Well that is a lovely bit of logic isn't it. If an organisation has a sexist policy against women, and thus only men are there, and we use sexual distraction as a justification to deny women, and it is pointed out that well this justification could be used to deny men too, well you see. .. .. .. .. .the men were there first. Would we accept such reasoning against allowing blacks into a previous all white military if the argument was about blacks being a distraction of some sort ? of course not. We would just point out this argument doesn't hold up because the military should not denied blacks in the first place. Like wise we can reject this line of reasoning that the infantry/special forces should not of denied females in the first place. Distractions, sexual or other wisePro cites sexual distraction to deny women into the infantry/special forces. But distractions are a dime a dozen. Remember people have killed other people over dis-agreements about untestable claims about the existence of God/s and even more untestable claims about what that God wants and what God likes and hates. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .theological disputes if you will. Would we accept the argument that cause of such "distractions" that christians and/or atheists should be denied entry into the infantry/special forces ? I don't think most would, I don't think Pro would either. As such I think Pro owes us some explanation why sexual distractions gets a special focus more than any other possible distractions. Wrongful discriminationI would hope that it goes without saying that if there is discrimination to a group of people, then their needs to be a justification for that discrimination. Absent justification then we should not allow or seek to remove such unjustified discrimination. I maintain that Pro has not being able to justify his discrimination policy against women when it comes to the infantry/special forces. This is the whole point of me or anyone putting various arguments under scrutiny when what is being asked is that a certain group of people be denied something. In this case the group would be women and their denial of being allowed in the infantry/special forces. Military recruitment/creating unitsYou will recall I argued that. .. "Pros policy doesn't just deny women, it denies the military the ability to make up the best unit possible cause they are restricted to a talent pool at least when it comes to the infantry and special forces to only being able to create units consisting of one gender (males). "Now I find it ironic that Pro says in response. .. " I am not “anti-women,” I'm “anti-making elite units less effective. ”But yet it is Pro policy that ties the militaries hand in the creation of units in the infantry/special forces by only allowing them to create such units from males ! !! Now I am not even to sure if Pro dis-agrees with my argument here, or if he does what exactly is the counter argument. Pro brings up professional sports that are divided by gender, all male teams, all female teams and asks. .. "Do we not think that if any team could make themselves more competitive by recruiting females they would? "How does the fact that professional sports that is divided by gender refute my argument in this area. I think Pro should tell us exactly what the counter argument here is, if there is one. I look forward to Pros reply.