The Instigator
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,938 times Debate No: 44402
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

sengejuri

Pro

Open to all challengers! I will take the Pro side and therefore assume burden of proof. Debate will be 5 rounds, feel free to use sources throughout:

Round 1: Definitions and Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Responses
Round 5: Closing Arguments

Definitions:
"Infantry" = any Military Occupational Specialty labeled as "Infantry" in the Army or Marine Corps whose stated primary task is to physically close with and destroy the enemy by means of fire and maneuver.

"Special Forces" = direct action ground forces that fall under JSOC including: Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Marine Recon, Army Rangers, Delta Force, etc" this does NOT include various attachments such as Female Engagement Teams, Interpreters, etc"

"Remain closed" = females are prohibited from trying out for or joining

"Women" = if anyone wants to get scientific, we will use the International Olympic Committee definition of female: individuals recognized by law as female and having or only being sensitive to testosterone levels below the range naturally produced by men (1)

I set argument length to 5,000 so let's try to keep rounds clear and concise. I hope to avoid emotional or personal offense - facts and logic rule the day! Finally, good luck and have fun.

(1)http://www.olympic.org...
Illegalcombatant

Con

This is the first round, this is me accepting.
Debate Round No. 1
sengejuri

Pro

Currently, all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces are developing policies to open Infantry and Special Forces occupational specialties to females by 2016. There are only two possible categories these policies can fall under. Category 1 makes all standards of conduct and training equal across the board. In the words of GEN Martin Dempsey, standards will be "gender neutral," truly the same for men and women (1). Category 2 includes every other scenario where standards are not made completely equal. Both options breed grave consequences, which I will take time to explain.

The negative impacts of any category 2 policy are obvious. Integrating and training females under different standards can hardly be considered a successful integration. Tolerating different standards between two people performing the same job is commonly known as favoritism, unfairness, or discrimination. Such sentiments destroy cohesion and morale and unavoidably lead to decreased unit readiness. Ultimately, category 2 policies intensify the very problems they seek to solve.

The effects of category 1 policies are less apparent but equally harmful. It is not enough to simply make women do more push-ups, carry heavier rucksacks, and run faster. To have a truly "gender neutral" standard, you must also seek equality in aspects often overlooked by people unfamiliar with military life. For example, Infantrymen in the field sometimes go for weeks without access to running water. We solve this problem by giving each other "baby wipe showers," in which you strip naked and have your buddy scrub you down with baby wipes. To go to the bathroom, Soldiers dig a slit trench in the middle of their perimeters into which they defecate and urinate in plain view of others. In combat, Soldiers in armored vehicles must urinate into bottles and defecate into bags right next to their fellow passengers because it is not safe to pull over and get out. Ranger school students must drop their pants on command during winter classes so instructors can check for unauthorized thermal undergarments. Will female Rangers be required to do the same, and if so who will check them? How do we uphold a female"s right to privacy in such conditions? What about grooming standards, why do male basic trainees have to shave their heads but not females? What about body fat standards, which are currently vastly different (2)? There are scores of similar examples and each has two choices. First, to implement different standards (erect privacy curtains, have separate slit trench locations, allow females to keep their hair in basic, etc...) which reverts the policy to category 2. Second, push on with the "gender neutral" standard (females use the slit trench, urinate into bottles, shave their heads, etc...) and destroy a woman"s right to sexual privacy. Neither option is fair. Neither option helps Infantry units become more effective.

Finally, one must consider the effects of these policies on variables we cannot control - foreign populations. In Afghanistan, I was required to meet with village elders, Afghan military leaders, and local leaders every week. Women are not allowed to converse with or even sit in the same room as men in Afghanistan and many other conservative, patriarchal societies across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (areas where the U.S. is very likely to operate in the future). I do not believe this is right or politically correct, but it is true nonetheless. Thrusting female Infantry leaders into these interactions not only risks offending and alienating the local populace, but also inhibits that leader"s ability to gather information and build relationships with them which jeopardizes the mission.

The bottom line is if a policy does not make America"s combat forces more effective at defeating the enemy, then one must reject that policy"s merit altogether.

(1)http://www.dodlive.mil...
(2) http://www.apd.army.mil...
Illegalcombatant

Con

Opening Remarks

So friends, here we are again. In the on going saga of men....well it's usually men denying women that which they don't deny themselves. Men.......and it's usually men have in the past have denied women, on the sole basis that they are a woman such things as......

1) Bodily rights/right to abortion
2) The right to vote
3) The right to marry whom they choose
4) The right to own land
5) The right to be a minister of religion
6) The right to not to wear a cloth bag/burka when in public
7) The right to drive a car
8) Etc etc

And men...........and it's usually men in their own mind have good arguments to support those denials, but they are not good arguments usually it just crap praying on peoples prejudices against women. Maybe Pros argument is different ? maybe this time we actually have a sound argument for denying a woman something, just on the sole basis that a person has a vagina/ovaries...... I wouldn't count on it.

Pooping into a bag & wipe downs

Pro informs us of some acts that might have to be committed in the line of duty, such as pooping in a bag while in a tank and giving each other wipe downs. Yeah and how exactly do we go from those acts to well therefore we must never, ever, ever allow a woman into the infantry or special forces ? well the only thing I see to make this link is that Pro conjures up a woman's right to privacy.

Would Pro accept the exact same argument about pooping in a tank, wipe downs and pooping in a trench and a man's right to privacy to deny all men to enter into the infantry and special services? of course not. The argument here is SELECTIVLY APPLIED ONLY TO WOMEN.

Dealing with people that hold woman in low regard

Pro cites the examples of military operations having to deal with people who hold woman in low regard. Even 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 from infantry and special forces in it's entirety ? it doesn't, it's a complete non sequitur.

Also notice once again the double standard here. Pro cites the military having to deal with people who hold woman in low regard, well guess what the military has and will have to deal with people who hold other groups of people in low regard such as........Christians, Homosexuals,Catholics,Protestants,Atheists,Whites,Blacks.

Does Pro advocate that all these groups should be banned from the infantry and special forces too using the same argument ? of course not. Once again he only APPLIES HIS ARGUMENT SELECTIVELY TO WOMEN.

Summary

I maintain Pro has not provided an argument that can be used consistently to deny women entry into the infantry and special forces. Pro has arguments that he only selectively applies to woman but doesn't apply the same reasoning to say men, christians or homosexuals.

I look forward to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 2
sengejuri

Pro


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?


Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Opening comments

Let's get something straight here shall we. Pro isn't arguing that some sort of standard should be applied to both men and women EQUALLY, but rather the fact that a person is a woman, no matter what else their merits just the fact they a woman is an automatic disqualification. I maintain that Pro has not given us a good argument to support this dis-qualification on the basis of being a woman.

Arguments used selectively on women/special pleading

I have shown that Pro uses his argument selectively only to woman but doesn't apply the same logic to other groups.

Pro tried to use the fact that in certain missions that the military will have to deal with people/groups who hold woman in low regard as a justification for not just allowing woman to be in the infantry/special forces at all. I pointed out that this same reasoning could be used to deny other groups.

In response Pro says..."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. "

Sure in some situations a woman may be required to wear a burka and sit in a different room, also in some area's homosexuals are stoned to death and christians are ordered on pain of death to convert to Islam. What do you think Pro ? does this constitute a barrier to communication ?

Is Pro now going to demand that we don't allow these groups to not be allowed in the special forces ? of course not. Cause once again Pro doesn't really have an argument............HE HAS AN EXCUSE to try and deny one group (women).

In logic terms what Pro is doing is known as special pleading..."Special pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency " in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that their argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules." [1]

Pro changes his argument

You will recall that Pro mentioned certain acts that might have to be performed, eg: pooping in bags in a tank & wipe downs. This of it's self doesn't justify anything, yet alone denying woman from the special forces. In order to try and make the link he cited "privacy". I once again pointed out the same argument could be used to deny all men from the special forces.

Pro says in reply....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"

Notice the shift here by Pro to cite "sexual distraction". That was NOT pros original argument in this area, this is a shift of Pros part. But let's deal with this new argument anyway.

Also notice once again the special pleading. Why isn't it the men who are denied entry into the special forces because they might be too sexual distracting to some woman ? Why does the argument here only work one way ? cause once again Pro special pleads for his side.

Also why is it only sexual distraction that is used here ? what about other distractions ? what about distractions caused by theological disputes such as the existence of God/s ? Would pro accept such reasoning to deny all christians to the speical forces ? of course not.

Military recruitment/creating units

Consider the question posed by Pro..."how does integrating females enhance unit effectiveness?"

A unit is compromised of more than one person. The effectiveness of the unit goes hand and hand with effectiveness of the individuals that make up that unit. Or to put it more simply, better the people, better the unit and dare I say..............better the military in general.

Pro himself puts it this way...."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"

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).

Pros position here clearly conflicts with the goal of the military to create the best units possible.

My position clearly allows the military a better chance of putting together better units including the infantry and special forces by NOT restricting their talent pool and creation of units from only one gender.

I look forward to Pros reply.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
sengejuri

Pro


I appreciate the response from Con.


I implore readers once again to notice Con asks a lot of hypothetical questions and attacks my arguments, but has only made one single argument supporting their own position. This is the argument about talent pools at the end of Round 3, which I will get to later.


Con oversimplifies and misrepresents my arguments on multiple levels. This is called a “straw man” fallacy – oversimplifying or misrepresenting an argument to make it artificially easy to rebut(1). Consider the following: Pro isn't arguing that some sort of standard should be applied to both men and women EQUALLY, but rather . . . the fact they [are] a woman is an automatic disqualification


This is misrepresentation because it’s not really what I said. I am AGAINST applying standards to men and women UNEQUALLY (reference my “category 2” argument in round 2). I am saying that if we DID apply standards equally across the board, there would be negative consequences that decrease effectiveness.


It is also oversimplification. I am not saying that two X chromosomes and ovaries are an “automatic disqualification.” I am saying let’s look at the potential consequences of this policy and measure them objectively. If the consequences outweigh the benefits – THAT is the disqualification. I am not “anti-women,” I'm anti-making elite units less effective.”


Con does manage one argument: that females increase the size of the talent pool. To this I ask, why don’t men’s professional contact sports (football, boxing, hockey, etc…) double the size of their talent pools by opening to females? Do we not think that if any team could make themselves more competitive by recruiting females they would? Decide for yourselves.


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. My OPPONENT actually asks for special cases every time they try to introduce other populations into the debate.


Here, Con commits another logical fallacy called a “red herring.” This is where someone uses unrelated or irrelevant arguments to distract listeners from the actual issue (2). Contemplating the merits of Blacks, Whites, Christians, Atheists in the military are separate issues for separate debates. However, I will provide a short response nonetheless. Anyone who has been to these Middle Eastern conflict areas knows no group is more mistreated than women. I am a Christian, I had Soldiers who were Black, White, Atheist, etc… we were all warmly received by and allowed to converse with the Afghan elders. There are also high levels of homosexuality in some of these cultures, and it is either accepted or turned a blind eye to (3). These traits were not barriers in my experience. I DID notice that there was NEVER a woman in sight when men were meeting together. With that, let’s re-focus on the issue at hand.


Con says I change my argument. I do not change it, I BUILD upon it. That's the reason for having multiple rounds. Building from sexual privacy to sexual distraction is not a major shift. Lack of sexual privacy leads to sexual distraction, which leads to problems. Once again I propose this is why we have separate bathrooms, showers, etc…


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.


Thanks for reading to everyone following this debate. I eagerly await Con’s response.


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...


(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...


(3) http://publicintelligence.net...


Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Arguments used selectively on women/special pleading


Consider 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 win

Consider 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 wise

Pro 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 discrimination

I 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 units

You 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.

Debate Round No. 4
sengejuri

Pro

Thanks to Con for closing out the final round of rebuttals. I will keep my conclusion short.
Throughout this debate my opponent knocks down "straw men" by refuting points I'm not trying make. Extending all arguments to groups other than women and then refuting those extensions is a tactic used by Con to avoid answering how integrating females specifically will not cause significant consequences.

Let us be clear. This is not an equal rights issue. Women DO have the right to serve in the armed forces if they wish, and tens of thousands do so honorably every year. But when it comes down to those small, elite units whose sole job is to seek out, engage, and destroy the enemy in brutal combat, it's not a question of equality. It's a question of effectiveness. Only the most effective, most cohesive units survive - and survival is the name of the game in combat.

There are two main reasons to suspect integration will actually decrease effectiveness:

1) If standards for men and women are not totally equal in every way (and currently, they are not), units will cultivate favoritism, discrimination, and jealousy.

2) If standards DO become equal in every way, females will surrender their sexual privacy. This leads to sexual distraction which can destroy cohesion and only invites the epidemic of sexual assault in the military to worsen. We protect sexual privacy for obvious reasons in civilian society, why should we destroy it in military society?

This is not about equality, or career advancement, or sexism. It's about being effective on the battlefield. How do I know this? I am an Army Ranger and a combat veteran. I have led multiple platoons in both training and war. I know what it takes to be an infantryman from years of experience. As such, I maintain that Con has failed to convincingly argue how integrating females would not decrease the effectiveness of these vital units. Now it is up to you, the voter, to decide.

I wish to congratulate my opponent on a well fought debate, I had fun and I hope they did too. Once again, thanks to everyone who followed this all the way to the end.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Shifting the burden

Pro claims..." As such, I maintain that Con has failed to convincingly argue how integrating females would not decrease the effectiveness of these vital units"

This is shifting the burden on Pros part..." In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. That is, if a person says that the moon is made of cheese, then it is up to that person to support this assertion. Demanding that the other party demonstrate that the moon is not made of cheese would constitute shifting the burden of proof." [1]

Arguments used selectively on women/special pleading

Pro has tried all sorts of justifications to try ban women. Trouble is those justifications if accepted could also be used to ban other groups such as christians, homosexuals, atheists, etc etc.

Pro doesn't accept that christians should be banned because the military will encounter people who hold christians in low regard, yet he argues that women should be banned because the military will encounter people who hold women in low regard.

Pro doesn't accept that atheists should be banned cause they might cause a distraction, Yet he argues that women should be banned because they might cause a distraction.

Pro doesn't accept that men should be banned cause they might cause a sexual distraction to women, yet he argues that women should be banned cause they might cause a sexual distraction.

That's the logical inconsistency of Pros argument here, that is the special pleading against women.

Allowing women "invites" sexual assault ?

Consider where Pro says..." This leads to sexual distraction which can destroy cohesion and only invites the epidemic of sexual assault in the military to worsen."

But why would there be an epidemic of sexual assault by allowing women ? Is the infantry/special forces made up by rapists ? Here is the point, if in your infantry/special forces have people who would commit such acts, ya know what, the solution isn't to ban women, maybe, just maybe, the men who would commit sexual assaults shouldn't be there in the first place.

Military recruitment/creating units

Pro is quite insistent that the military be able to make the best units possible. I pointed out that Pros position here is counter productive in that area since the military can only create units from males, and females are banned regardless of what ever else they bring to the table.

Pros response here had something to do with professional sports such as hockey and football teams that are separated by gender. Now how does this refute my argument in this area ? Pro never explained how.

As such I claim that my argument in this area has gone unrefuted.

Closing

First concerning the positive case for why women should be allowed in the infantry/special forces. Those being that discrimination that is not justified is wrongful and not allowing women as advocated by Pro is counter productive when trying to make the best units possible.

It should be noted it doesn't matter if these arguments fail, as the burden was on Pro to justify banning women. So how did Pro go about justifying banning women ?

I maintain that Pro has used justifications to ban women from the infantry/special forces, But those justifications if accepted could also be used to justify banning other groups, Pro doesn't accept using those same justifications for banning other groups yet still uses them to justify banning women, this is the logical inconsistency in his argument.

I maintain that Pro arguments was shown faulty in light of my objections.

I ask the vote go to the Con.

I thank Pro for the debate.

Sources

[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dollffinn 1 year ago
dollffinn
An interesting debate for certain. After reading the entire debate, I find it incredibly difficult to side with con as their grammar and spelling alone makes it difficult to fully understand what their specific argument is. I am a woman and have been seeking a valid perspective that would make me think that women should be given equal opportunity in a special forces unit. It would seem that I still can't validate that perspective. My top priority is that this country's safety comes before equality for women in an elite team.

Now, on to the debate and a point that was made repeatedly by con: the reason women are a distraction versus a Christian or a homosexual is because it's a visual difference. Christianity and homosexuality are not nearly as visible as gender. Women are a distraction to men, whether it be sexually or having been raised to feel protective of women. Men in an elite force would be subjected to a better potential for harm due to the presence of a woman in their unit. And that is unacceptable in my mind. I would rather our men come home safely from missions that regularly deploy these elite units than have women pursue a political agenda of equality under the guise of hollering about discrimination.
Posted by Linkish1O2 3 years ago
Linkish1O2
i would like to watch this one, for I would be on the pro side of this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
sengejuriIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Having been deployed... I really can't grade this fairly given the short amount of time in the vote window.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
sengejuriIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate, however I do not believe Pro could have ever won this debate. Any reason to exclude women based on privacy and gender is an automatic loss. Whether it is distracting in war is not the point, it is still discrimination. As such points to Con. I am handing Pro conduct points as Con didn't follow the debate rules, also Con made appeals to emotion by reverting to asking questions about other groups. Good debate all round. S&G and sources are shared.