The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Women in Combat Arms (2)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 90181
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Full Resolution: Women should be allowed into combat arms if they meet all standards.


Combat Arms: All branches of the US Military previously closed to females, including Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces.

Standards: All performance standards currently set for combat arms jobs, including physical fitness scores, body composition, etc...

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals/Counter arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments)


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting, hoping for a good debate.

== Argument ==

1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, then on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involve completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded both of these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify men for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job.

2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have and did so with distinction.

3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception.



Alright, here's the deal armchair generals like me have with women & combat arms.

If I'm a military commander, I don't want just women or men in combat arms, I want the best. And I don't care who or even what that is; what age, race, color, or gender, computer robot or not a computer robot, doesn't make any difference to me, but when I go to war, I go to win. And I'm taking the best darn, most invincible soldiers ever with me.

Now having said that, I'm forced to reconcile with facts that show that men (and all male units) make the best infantry soldiers.

1) Men are generally physically superior to women, and have more athletic potential. (Scientific fact)
2) Most males are overwhelmingly stronger than their female counterparts (
3) The most elite female athletes are barely stronger than your average males (
4) Male bodies are generally less prone to injury, have more endurance, stronger skeletal frames, have more muscle mass, and have thicker bone densities.
5) Men can't become pregnant. Mixed units can cause distractions.
6) Men and women are perceived & treated differently both in American society and in the military.
7) The military -and especially ground combat- has traditionally been an all male endeavor, making hopes of successful integration difficult.

Which leads us to make the following contentions:

#1 Admitting women is a bad idea and risks lowering military standards.

The general rule here is this; most women are weaker then men, infantry standards were originally designed with men in mind, and so if these tests are too difficult for most women, then they're probably are. Political pressure from feminists and political action groups will therefore renew pressure on the military to ultimately change their infantry standards to make them more fair to women. Resulting in more women, less men, and weaker soldiers overall.

Known as "The Dempsey Rule" (named after Gen. Dempsey's controversial remarks on fairness & standards;, the scenario looks like this:

Future inquires will happen.

Congress will ask, how many women are in these units?

Why so few?

How many are applying?

Are these tests unfair to women?

Should we change the tests?

Military sets a quota.

New quota + Special tests = Less qualified applicants to fill quota.

Which (more than theoretical) has been the case with nearly all affirmative action cases in the military since the 1970s and is still happening now:

#2 National Security is no place to be running large-scale social experiments

The military is no place to be running large scale social experiments of any kind, especially when social engineering could impact fitness standards and risk operational effectiveness in combat.

American women (as a gender) have not proven themselves in direct-action combat roles or extensive combat training, and society itself has not confirmed its ready for women casualties. To date, women do not even participate alongside men in professional sports, register for the draft, wear the same style of clothes, or share a restroom.

Women are also disproportionately victimized and sexually assaulted, and treated/viewed differently in many areas of work and employment.

Therefore, before we even begin to think about jeopardizing soldiers lives with integration, we should make absolutely sure that women, men, and the country are in fact ready.

#3 Unit Cohesion & Problems with Mixed Units

In a recent Marine Corps survey, 2 out of every 3 male marines were opposed to serving alongside women in combat (including 72% of junior officers). The survey also found that 1 out of every 3 female marines were also opposed to the idea. And despite the hypocrisy of the latter statistic, the Marine Corps is now being forced to undergo mandatory "unconscious bias training" towards women:

In a similar opinions survey, the Rand Corporation found that 85% of the special forces community were also opposed to integrating women:
With statistics like these, morale and unit cohesion in our ground combat units certainly spells disaster.

And this goes without saying the out of control rape and sexual assault cases that the DoD still hasn't been able to solve (affecting 1 out of every 3 women) (

#4 Military Standards should be raised

Contrary to popular belief, the tests that the military requires for its fighting units only represents a minimum standard. Just because you passed your college exams with a C average doesn't mean you've actually excelled, and all biological evidence for that matter, shows that women do not have the same fighting potential as men. For all the women recruits who can pass Rangers school and carry their own weight at an infantry course, a majority of men will always score higher, and at top of the graduating class will always be a man.

Normally this wouldn't matter, but soldiering on the front lines is not a normal occupation. The nation is putting you in harms way and commanders have a duty to ensure that their soldiers can make it out alive. Infantry units are weaker when women and less qualified soldiers are involved, and recent research done by the USMC proves it:

Which is why I'm prepared to argue that the military should consider raising its infantry/fitness standards, and one of the best ways to do that is to have an all-male infantry force.

All things considered, including less qualified soldiers in combat arms is never a good idea, and military issues should not be politicized.

Back over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con.
== Rebuttal ==
Notice that almost all of Con's points contain qualifiers such as "generally," "most," "traditionally," and "average." Such language renders Con's argument irrelevant, because I am not talking about the average, general population of women. I am talking about above average - the women with exceptional strength and toughness, as I made very clear in Round 2. So, let's go through Con's argument line by line:
1) "Men are generally physically superior to women..." - I agree. But I'm not talking about general trends. I'm talking about exceptional individuals who prove they can exceed the standard. When soldiers are measured on individual merit, it's undeniable that some females will prove physically superior to some males. To believe otherwise would be extremely naive.

2) "Most males are overwhelming[ly] stronger than their female counterparts" - Again, I agree. This does not hurt my argument. See above.

3) "Elite female athletes are barely stronger than your average males" - EXACTLY! So why shouldn't that elite female be allowed to join the ranks of fighting men? If there is at least one single "average" male currently serving in the infantry, why shouldn't an elite female also be allowed to serve? Being barely stronger is still stronger, so wouldn't this be an improvement?

4) "Male bodies are generally less prone to injury..." Ok, perhaps that is "generally" true. But there are always exceptions. There are female athletes out there who are less injury prone than males. What about them? Once again, for Con's argument to work, he would have to show that not a single female in the human species has more endurance, muscle mass, and bone density than a male soldier. That would be an absurd claim.

5) "Men can't become pregnant. Mixed units can cause distractions." The concern of pregnancy is at base a concern about physical conditions that can take a soldier out of the fight. It's true, if a female soldier becomes pregnant overseas, she is immediately sent home and can no longer do her job. BUT - this concern applies to every demographic of soldier - male, female, white, black, gay, straight. Only male soldiers can get prostate cancer- should this exclude them? A black soldier might distract a white soldier - should this exclude blacks? A gay infantryman may be sexually attracted to another infantryman - should this exclude him? It's special pleading so say a female should be excluded because of the potential for pregnancy, but all other demographics are acceptable. A better policy is to simply hold individuals accountable for individual choices. If you choose to drink and drive and get a DUI, the army kicks you out. Yes, this hurts unit readiness, especially if that soldier was in a leadership role, but the organization moves on and continues to function just fine. It's ridiculous to think that removing a pregnant female from a unit would destroy unit cohesion and effectiveness. Soldiers are removed from units all the time, and the military continues to do its job.

The "mixed units cause distractions" argument is extremely weak. Every demographic has the potential to cause "distraction." I'm sure black soldiers were a huge distraction to all-white units in the 1950s. Females caused huge distractions at West Point when it became co-ed in the late 1970s. Gay soldiers undoubtedly cause distraction and discomfort to very culturally conservative soldiers. And yet, none of these cases of "distraction" were enough to justify continued segregation and exclusion. In fact, the military is undoubtedly stronger because of the diversification of its ranks. The potential for distraction has never been enough to justify discrimination, and it should not be in this case either.

6) "Men and women are perceived & treated differently" - I fail to see the relevance here. Every type of person is perceived differently. Officers are treated differently than enlisted soldiers. Marines are perceived differently than sailors. Fighter pilots are perceived differently than supply clerks. This is not a justification for exclusion. If anything, the difference in perception of men and women probably stems from the fact that women aren't allowed to serve in these roles. Once they integrate, that will help change the perception significantly.

7) "The mililtary has traditinally been an all male endeavor..." - again, no relevance here. Before 1950, the military was traditionally a racially segregated endeavor. Before 1980, West Point was traditionally an all male endeavor, and before 1877, an all white male endeavor. Before 2011, the US Military was an all heterosexual endeavor, etc.... All these "traditions" changed over time and the military was better for it. None of these integrations caused the military to self destruct. This one is no different.

Contention #1 - Con claims integrating females will lead to lower standards, citing the infamous "Dempsey Rule." My question would simply be - why would standards need to lower if women are already meeting the current ones? To date, 3 women have passed all MALE standards for US Army Ranger School, and more are sure to follow. It seems then, that these tests are not too difficult for women, and so the Dempsey Rule is defunct. Con suggests quotas of women soldiers will develop, but that has so far not been the case. There are no quotas for how many gay, or black, or hispanic soldiers need to be in infantry units. There's no reason to believe there will be quotas for female soldiers either. Con's cited source talks about raw recruitment quotas for females (this is nothing new btw...), but that is not the same as imposing quotas on females specifically in combat arms. To date, zero female marines have passed the Marine Infantry Officer Course, and so there are currently zero female infantry officers. Doesn't appear to be any quota there... Con's argument here is speculative at best.

Contention #2 - Don't run social experiments in the military. First, I would counter that it is not a social experiment if you merely say "here's the standard. It's the same for everyone. If you meet it, you're in. If you don't, you're out." That's all I'm advoacting. That's not a sinister feminist experiment, it's equality. Second, I once again point to history - black soldiers were first (officially) integrated into white units during the Korean War. Females first graduated West Point in 1980. Gay soldiers first served openly in 2011. All of these could have been considered "social experiments." But that didn't stop them from happening, in fact, it only made the military a stronger and more diverse force.

Con says society isn't ready for women to fill male roles, wear male style clothing, or share restrooms. Has Con's head been in the sand over the past 10 years? Society is OVERWHELMINGLY advocating for gender equality, unisex restrooms, ending gender norms, etc...

Contention #3 - unit cohesion. I have already discussed this. Just because 2/3 of male marines say they disapprove doesn't mean a thing. That's how our system has always worked - the military obeys civilian authority according to the Constitution. Even if the military disagrees, they are legally bound to obey policies and orders issued by civilian leaders (Congress, Secretary of Defense, President, etc...). That's the oath they take.

#4 - standards should be raised. Con seems to believe the military is (or should be) filled with super-athlete Arnold Schwartzenegger types. That's not the case. Google search images of combat soldiers from any historical war. What do you see? They mostly look scrawny, thin, unimpressive. You don't have to be an Olympian to be an effective soldier, you have to be smart, and tough. There are certainly smart and tough females out there who can do the job. If the standard is too high, your military will be very small.
The bottom line: Some men can't meet current standards. Some women can. Why then is gender the discriminator, rather than the standard itself?


Elite females should not be integrated into combat arms because (as I've hopefully alluded to already) admitting women into our fighting units is not a good idea.

We are not about to sacrifice unit cohesion, safety, standards, and combat effectiveness for a militarily useless statement about political equality.

Equal standards - Pro's principle argument appears to be if an elite female can pass the same fitness standards set for a man, then they should be allowed in. Pro has made a very strong moral argument for why this is so, but has yet to demonstrate to us why this makes solid good military sense. These standards and tests again, only represent a minimum "admissions standard" for most infantry units. Simply passing the bar does not mean you've actually excelled, and female candidates who do attempt to join the infantry or special forces will predictably score lower and wash out in much greater numbers than their male counterparts ever will. The best warriors and most capable soldiers will always be men; and elite units –if anything else- should stay permanently closed to women.

Bottom line, there is no reason to believe -given scientific evidence- that elite females have more fighting potential then elite men. The average male soldier is also significantly stronger than your average female soldier. Anybody and everybody would be really silly to argue against that, and yet, -according to studies- your elite female athlete is still only barely stronger than your non-athletic male (; whereas female integration into ground combat has also only proven to make infantry men perform worse (

Why then should we give up an infantry MOS along with a male spot to Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) for a less qualified solider who has the potential to become pregnant as well harm unit cohesion and weaken combat effectiveness?

When I go to war, I go to win, and I only take the best and most qualified soldiers with me.

Women already have proved competence in combat – Unfortunately, women (as a gender) have NOT proven competence in combat comparable to men. “Courage and valor” is not the same thing as combat proficientcy, which relates more to talents, skills, and actual battlefield predicting abilities – such as physical fitness, biology, marksmanship, technical proficiently, and the ability to pass or exceed a training standard. Again, only three (3!) outlier women thus far have proven able to pass ranger school, whereas it is an established fact that most women will have trouble meeting standards originally set for men.

American women for instance, are admitted on much weaker raw admission standards then men.

Women have also never served in direct action infantry units in any country, and have no outstanding combat records to speak of.

But as an intellectual challenge to Pro and to the reader, I’d like to know just how integrating women (or even elite women) into combat arms over men actually adds to (or maintains) combat effectiveness. Because as far as we can tell, adding mixed units into the ground combat equation will not constitute as an effective force multiplier.

Women in other countries: (Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway). - I won’t spend too much time here unless pressed again by Pro. But it is an established fact that women have never served as part of the primary infantry force for any country. There is no grand combat record to speak of. In Israel for instance, where military service is compulsory for both men and women- women are admitted on weaker standards than men, and serve mostly as part of the border guard, police, and K9 units: (

The United States Arms Forces (so long as I’m an armchair general) is also going to have significantly higher standards and better infantry units than the Australian, Norwegian, Hun, and Canadian armies.

"mixed units cause distractions" argument is extremely weak. - The cohesion & distraction argument is not a weak argument. It’s my best argument. The most appalling and disgusting statistic in the history of the United States military is the fact that 1 out of every 3 women has undergone at least some kind of harassment or sexual assault while serving in the military ( This statistic is significantly higher than the civilian ratio, which is 1 out of 6. Sexual harassment/assault is an enduring problem that originated with women integration, and is something that the military has never been able to solve.

The Dempsey Rule & “why would standards need to lower if women are already meeting the current ones?” - Because most women don’t. Pro has alluded this himself, stating “zero female marines have passed the Marine Infantry Officer Course,” and that there are currently “zero female infantry officers” in the Army. Gen Dempsey has mentioned that if women can’t meet a standard, then the military will question "whether it should be that high." We can only conjecture therefore (without an argument from the DoD or Pro for increased military effectiveness) that integration was mostly politically motivated, and that the military will be pressured down the road to lower its standards to accommodate more women.

Take women integration into West Point for instance; when Congress made the decision to admit women to West Point, they instructed the Military Academy, in effect, to "change whatever standards needed to be changed in order to accommodate physiological differences between men and women." They identified more than 120 physiological differences (

On quotas- Quotas and special tests are in fact already being done to integrate women and have been the Pentagon’s “go-to policy" for integrating minorities since the 70s. The opportunity cost of which is obviously less qualified soldiers. And contrary to Pro’s statements about the use of quotas, they have in fact been assigned for specific MOS specialties before.

African Americans, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and social experiments. - Sexual orientation and skin color has never proved to be a determining factor for combat effectiveness or for lowering admission standards. Gender has. And integrating women, when combined with problems of distraction, pregnancy, cohesion, and lack of a proven combat record, is a much riskier social proposition. It would be much better then to integrate women into professional sports and other all-male venues first, then risk national security.

The military obeys civilian authority according to the Constitution. - Here, Pro is right. But wouldn't’t it be nice if civilian authority actually listened to military advice for a change?

Society is OVERWHELMINGLY advocating for gender equality - American society has never experienced a woman tackled by an NFL player or men and women sharing a restroom, ever. Society has also never experienced the anxiety of women draftees, women POWs, or women body bags lined up in mass rows at Arlington from Afghanistan or Iraqi Freedom. In fact the only one instance where society was forced to react to a real POW incident was Prvt Sarah Jessica Lynch, and what a media firestorm & backlash that was. They even made a TV drama afterwards.

But if society can’t stomach the capture or anxiety of a single female soldier, how does public opinion stomach a long-term conflict –like Vietnam & Iraq- if women are suddenly being killed, raped, drafted, and captured in unequal numbers to men? Women are proven to be physiologically weaker soldiers, and my speculation is that society will declare that the military has a “war on women.”

**For lack of character space I was not able to address all of Pro's counters this round (pregnancy, higher standards), but please note that I have not dropped any of these issues. Please appropriately weigh his arguments against mine.

Back again to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


My conclusion will be short, since Con has merely tried to double down on his previous argument.

Equal Standards: Con again assumes that even the most elite females will merely "pass the bar" and skate by on the minimum standards. We can agree that aspiring to the minimum standard is not ideal, but there is no reason to believe that elite females cannot pass elite standards. The maximum male score for a 2-mile run in the Army Physical Fitness Test is 13 minutes or less. Does Con seriously believe there are no women who can run 2 miles in under 13 minutes? We can even agree that the best, most capable warriors are men, and that elite females do not have more fighting potential than elite males. It doesn't matter. That's not the argument.

Why? Because by the very definition of the word "elite," not everyone in combat service is elite. The combat arms of large nations consist of hundreds of thousands of people. This is obvious - you need a big army to attack or defend against a big opponent. Naturally, some of those many thousands will be better than others. Not everyone can be the fastest or strongest. Because of this fact, there is a range of abilities that are deemed sufficient for service. As long as you fall into that range, you are allowed to join. Therefore, it follows that females don't have to be the best - most men are not the best either, by definition. If they fall into that range of abilities the military deems sufficient to do the job, then how are they any different than the thousands (millions?) of male soldiers who moderately surpass the standard? Once again, this is special pleading. There is no reason to assume a woman is less qualified simply because she's a woman. See if she can meet the standard, then decide.

Women proved competence in combat - Here, Con shockingly says "'Courage and valor' is not the same thing as combat proficiency." Really? If SGT Hester leading an assualt against an enemy ambush and killing 27 enemy is not combat proficiency, then I would love to know what is. These are EXACTLY the traits needed for a combat soldier. Then Con pivots back to generalizations - "well, only 3 women have passed Ranger School, but most won't..." (paraphrase). So what? Again, I'm not talking about the general female population. I'm talking about the elite exceptoins - why should a woman who passes Ranger School be blocked from the infantry when most MEN don't even pass Ranger School?!

Sexual Assault - this is not a reason for exclusion. Again, individuals are responsible for individual actions. A woman is also far more likely to be raped by someone she knows - so should women avoid all acquaintances to eliminate this risk? If a man in an infantry unit is willing to sexually assault a woman, he doesn't deserve to wear the uniform anyway. It's not the woman's fault if a criminal is in her midst.

Dempsey Rule - Con's response here is again, "because most women don't [meet the standard]." And again I will say, I'm not talking about most women, I'm talking about the elite few. They can, and they have met current male standards.

Quotas: Even if quotas do exist (Con cited no sources), it doesn't mean standards will fall and soldiers will be less qualified. Standards have remained consistent, and women are already passing.

Society and gender equality. Here Con writes: "my speculation is that society will declare that the military has a 'war on women.'" Exactly. Speculation. On the contrary, trends appear to be headed exactly where Con thinks they are not. True, females are not yet competing in male pro sports divisions, but they are trending there. Multiple girls compete on boys high school football and wrestling teams. The NFL just hired its first female coach last year. Women have broken into men's NASCAR and Golf. These are tiny steps, granted, but they show no signs of stopping. Indeed, an ESPN study concluded: "Dr. Cindy Chang, chief medical officer for the U.S. Olympic Committee, said studies have shown that men have greater upper-body strength than women, but added that studies that compare physical differences do so by comparing the averages. There are women who may be at the far end of the curve in areas such as leg strength, or have a body type that is beneficial for certain sports." [1] (emphasis mine).

The bottom line: Women have proven they can meet extremely grueling, male-oriented standards reserved for elite forces (i.e., Ranger School). Many men have tried and failed to meet this exact same standard. Yet these men are still allowed to serve in combat, while the exceptional women are not. Once again, this means that gender is the standard, rather than the standard itself, which is unjust.

*I did not respond to everything in the interest of brevity. Since Con chose to do the same last round, this should not count against either of us.

Thanks again to Jingle_Bombs for a great debate!


For this round I've decided to triple down!

On Equal Standards

"there is no reason to believe that elite females cannot pass elite standards."

But there is reason to believe that they cannot excel pass elite men. Pro has acknowledged this himself, "We can even agree that the best, most capable warriors are men, and that elite females do not have more fighting potential than elite males." Pro says, this is not the argument. But if the point of elite standards is to recruit the best and most capable soldiers in the first place, why then are giving up a male spot to Special Forces Selection to the obviously less qualified female candidate? It makes no military sense to give up these limited spots to females (and suffer the costs of having weaker units) when men clearly have more fighting potential.

"Does Con seriously believe there are no women who can run 2 miles in under 13 minutes?"

Not too many. And the fastest runners are in fact men.

Again, my point is men make the best soldiers, and I only want the best.

"not everyone in combat service is elite."

Everyone in Tier 1 Special Forces is elite. If not, then you have convinced us that we should definitely consider raising the standards.

"Because of this fact, there is a range of abilities that are deemed sufficient for service."

Not for special forces. They're only after specific qualified individuals with unique talents & skill sets who can pass and exceed high standards.

"Therefore, it follows that females don't have to be the best."

Yes they do. Only elite females have a remote chance of competing against men in athletic competition, and the three women who passed Ranger school were in fact the best the female kind had to offer. Unfortunately however, men still scored disproportionately higher and are biologically proven to be more capable soldiers.

"See if she can meet the standard, then decide."

Not the point. The soldiers who are exceeding the standards are men, and its more soldiers like them that we should recruit for our elite units.

On women competence in combat

"'Courage and valor' is not the same thing as combat proficiency." Really?"

Yes really. Otherwise suicide bombers, berserkers, and religious fanatics would make the best infantry soldiers.

But here you go. It took amazing guts for this young girl to become a Marine, but attitude only gets you so far:

"I'm talking about the elite exceptions - why should a woman who passes Ranger School be blocked from the infantry when most MEN don't even pass Ranger School?!"

1) Women make men perform worse:
2) Women will take MOS selection spots away from male candidates though quotas:
3) Women integration is proven to negatively effects unit cohesion and forces soldiers to undergo "unconscious bias training":
4) A woman can get pregnant, and will therefore risk becoming out of shape, leaving the service, and forfeiting the taxpayer's investment:
5) Admitting women risks politicizing the military and lowering standards for all (as what happened at West Point).

"well, only 3 women have passed Ranger School, but most won't..." (paraphrase). So what?"

It means that women have not proved combat proficiency comparable to men.

If women were equally as capable as men, then they would graduate in equal numbers and score just as high.

On Unit Cohesion

"[Sexual Assault] is not a reason for exclusion. Again, individuals are responsible for individual actions."

Not in the military. In the military, commanders are responsible for individual actions, and they have a duty to ensure that their units are free of any distractions and safety issues that could impede on mission objectives - including harassment & sexual assault.

But as it stands, our infantry forces are now being forced to undergo mandatory "unconscious bias training," because integrating women has proven to be one the most efficient methods of reducing unit morale:

2/3 male marines and 1/3 women marines do not trust women in infantry combat:
85% of the Special Force community also, does not trust women in combat:

And yet, despite all the talk that these statistics are undeserved, why then are women are admitted into the military on lower fitness scores then men, and still not at all eligible for the draft?

On gender equality

"trends appear to be headed exactly where Con thinks they are not. True, females are not yet competing in male pro sports divisions, but they are trending there."
And yet "the trend" has always been that men are always going to be best physical athletes. Men hold the great majority of Olympic records, and have the records for the most mass, agility, and bone density. There will never be a female basketball player who will ever dunk a basketball on Lebron James, pitch faster than Nolan Ryan, or run faster than Usain Bolt.

There will also never be an unathletic fat person (for all the talks of unfair discrimination) allowed into the military.

Men and women, therefore, are obviously in different leagues, and this great society "trend" Pro talks about ultimately ends with biology.

The bottom line: Pro wins the moral argument, but not the military one.

Our discussion for including women into combat and infantry roles has largely been driven by society calls for improving political equality, rather than maintaining military effectiveness. Pro has admitted this himself, "discriminating based on gender justice is unjust," and yet neither Pro nor the DoD has ever proved how incorporating women into our ground combat units constitutes as an effective force multiplier or even maintains combat effectiveness. It is not enough for the advocates of women soldiers to point to a very capable minority and say "see?" without understanding anything more than the PT test. All this time research and studies have shown that men make better soldiers, and that including women into mixed units actually harms unit performance, safety, cohesion, and risks lowering standards. Women have no outstanding combat records to speak of, and if anything else, should not be included into elite units. And while I do sympathize with Pro here, it is not totally unreasonable or unjust to say that military needs trump our needs for gender equality.

**Special thanks to Pro for hosting this debate. And thank you for your service.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sengejuri 1 year ago
source from last round:

Posted by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Posted by sengejuri 2 years ago
You can't be serious....
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
in other words, imagine a female general on her periods.
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
the physical aspect of a female plays an important roll even in her decision making. Female menstrual cycle has to be taken into consideration. this is true for all females, they can not stop this as it is a natural part of there body's functions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.