Combat units are best off comprised of all men, rather than differing assortments.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
Spelling and grammar points
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
~ 0 / 5,000
- Combat unit: a military unit whose organization, equipment, and training are designed to fit it to engage in combat.
- Military unit: a group having a prescribed size and a specific combat or support role within a larger military organization.
- Best off: in the most favorable or advantageous position.
- Comprised: consist of; be made up of.
- Men: an adult male human being.
- Assortment: a collection of assorted things or persons
- Resolution: Combat units are best off comprised of all men, rather than differing assortments.
- The military is one of the toughest and most rigorous institutions of society, and understandably so. Engaging in military combat is one of the toughest roles to play in service. Soldiers must be durable, agile, endurant, accurate in shooting, etc. Over the next few days, I aim to convince you (the voters) that combat units made up of men alone are the best, and most efficient combination to fulfill these tasks.
- Let's talk about what I am not arguing about.
- I'm not arguing that women should be blocked from the military
- I'm not arguing that only men should be allowed din combat
- Im not arguing that combat units should only contain men. Simply that it is better off for a combat unit to be comprised of men alone, than any other assortment of sexes.
- First, let's examine who is best suited to go through the rigorous training every member of a combat squad must go through.
- "'Figures from April show 44 percent of women failed to ACFT, compared to just 7 percent of men,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It looks like you have a problem and I hope you recognize that.' The Army announced this spring changes to the ACFT that make the two-minute plank a permanent alternative to the leg tuck event, which women have been failing at a higher rate than men" (ArmyTimes).
- Let's break this down piece by piece.
- The ACFT is the Army Physical Fitness Test.
- 44% of women failed this test, compared to only 7 percent of men.
- The Army had to make a different provision solely because so many women were unable to pass the test. Such a large proportion of them failed the leg tuck event, that they had to create a separate alternative option, to increase the passing rates of women.
- And therefore, it is better off to comprise a combat unit of men who are better equipped to handle the rigorous training required of one to be in the army.
- A study that followed the training courses of army trainees, recoding their body composition and physical fitness concluded that women are twice as likely as men to be injured in training.
- "Women experienced twice as many injuries as men (relative risk [RR] = 2.1, 1.78-2.5) and experienced serious time-loss injuries almost 2.5 times more often than men (RR = 2.4, 1. 92-3.05)" (Bell, Mangione, Hemenway, Amoroso, Jones).
- We now know that alongside the fact that women are failing the army fitness test in significantly larger proportions (44% vs 7% in men), women are twice as injury-prone when compared to men in combat training.
- It makes sense that women are more likely to be injured. They have less muscle, more body fat, and women tend to have smaller, thinner bones than men.
Additional differences in performance
- "In terms of reflexes and reaction times, men significantly outperform women"
- "When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are “more likely than women to take action”
- "Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy, women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently"
- "For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men" (National Review).
- Let's consider these quotes, and see what major facts we can conclude.
- Women have slower reflexes.
- Women are less likely to take action when confronted with immediate danger.
- Women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder.
Compared to mixed-gender combat units
- One may be wondering, how have all-male squads compared against mixed-gender squads in the military.
- Fortunately enough, a study conducted by the United States marines compared purely male combat squads to mixed-gender units and gives us this exact information.
- The long two-year study concluded, that all-male squad performed significantly better than mixed-gender squads.
- "All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed-gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries" (NPR)
- "All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty)" (Quartz).
- But say that large piece of evidence that essentially confirms the resolution still isn't enough for you. Another study conducted by Britain’s Tri-Service Review illustrates to us the same disadvantages of mixed-gender combat units and the various inefficiencies and underperformances of them.
- "A recent study, for instance, by Britain’s Tri-Service Review found that mixed-gender combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability. This study, along with countless others done over the last 40 years, demonstrate that combat capabilities are so heavily weighted toward men that the gap cannot be closed. As Marine Corps captain Lauren Serrano put it in a September 2014 article in the Marine Gazette: “Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion.” (National Review).
- Now, let's get back to the resolution.
- We know that 44% of women fail the army fitness test compared to 7% of men.
- We know that those remaining women who manage to pass the exam are twice as likely to get injured in training as men.
- We know that male combat squads have been proven to significantly outperform mixed-gender combat squads, showing better accuracy, durability, ability to maneuver over and around obstacles, etc.
- All this being said, are combat units best off comprised of men? I think I have proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Please, vote PRO.
Add a key, structure it very defensively.
Avoiding truisms and abusive splitting of the burden of proof (BoP).
Pro is trying to turn this resolution into a somewhat axiomatic statement, given that it is true that out of all males, a higher percentage are cut-out for combat roles than the percentage among females. I am conceding that percentage matter because it is extremely important to understand what Con would always be advocating for in any non-abusive split of BoP. The case of Con is that the minority of women who make the cut have among them the absolute efficient and brilliant agents to not waste and in fact have edges males lack.
There seems to be three wordings/angles that Pro is warping the resolution in order to win the debate as a semi-truism (semi because it's not technically axiomatic that more male soldiers make the cut and are fit for the job/role than females but it basically is a truism once that's accepted as true).
I will reword the title of the debate to make it clear how Pro is reframing the title to win:
- Combat units are more likely to be comprised of competent, fully trained combatants if they have males than females and the pool chosen out of is recruits.
- Combat units comprising of females, if nothing else is known about them, are more likely to have certain setbacks than ones comprising of only males
- If you had to form your own combat unit, knowing absolutely nothing else about the soldiers than their biological sex, you should opt for males in each slot of the unit/team.
These are three of the same twist.
The twist is that we are discussing if we knew nothing about the combatants other than their biological sex, we are more likely to form a team that will get the job done well if we go for males based on certain probability factors.
However, this debate is not framed that way, it is Pro twisting it that way. Since the debate lacks any 'description' the title would leave one interpreting it as that if you knew enough and had researched enough to begin deciding who to hire, you're still better off having a team of all males than any other sex-based configuration.
This is what I am Con to in this debate, not the reworded probabilty/gambling dynamic where we know nothing about the combatants other than their sex.
Furthermore, it is very important that the females and males have already passed their training. Nothing about the topic of this debate implied that recruits still in, or yet to undergo, training are part of the selected members of the unit. Therefore, any statistic relating to less females making the cut out of those that apply, has zero relevance because we would only ever be discussing those that did complete their training and are fully competent.
With BoP discussions out of the way, let's start with variation and what female combatants bring to the table.
Rather than dispute Pro continuously on every sexist notion made, I will instead prefer to agree on certain factors/statistics and hone in on female-favoured sexist edges possessed by females in the unit that Pro hasn't considered.
Females are more likely to be superior at team cohesion and interpersonal relations and empathy (EQ) than males are.
In the study, more than 300 management students were randomly assigned to teams. Some were predominantly female or male and some were gender-balanced, having about the same number of each sex. Men in teams with a balanced female presence had more positive experiences than they did in teams with a majority of men, the researchers found.
"We examined the impact of team gender on several variables important to team success, including trust, cohesion, inclusion and task/relationship conflict," said Kaitlin Thomas, a doctoral candidate in industrial-organizational psychology at George Washington, where the study originated.
One explanation, Thomas said, is that women tend to be more relationship-oriented than men and are more likely to stress collaboration and inclusion of all team members. She said the findings suggest that gender diversity is important and that teams with a higher representation of women on top management teams can have a positive impact on organizational success.
First, studies have shown that women are more likely to care for the collective, which means they are more likely to step in when they see a gap or ambiguity. Researcher, consultant, and author Pam Heim has studied gender differences and has published her findings in several books. Her research uncovers an important difference in the way men and women view collaboration. She found that women are more likely to agree with the statement “Being a good team player means helping all of my colleagues with what they need to get done.” In contrast, men are more likely to agree with the statement “Being a good team player is knowing your position and playing it well.” In organizations that get work done through informal project teams or that have overlapping accountabilities, this difference in perspective has implications for the way the men and women engage in collaboration.
Second, women are less likely to carve out time during the workday to focus on their top priorities, because they feel guilty or selfish for doing so. (Research that indicates guilt is typically a female trait supports this finding.) If women do carve out time, they tend to give it away if someone needs them. In the organizations we studied, the consequence is that women often end up overscheduled, rushing from meeting to meeting. This can have negative consequences on their careers because they risk appearing scattered, late, and unprepared. Their contributions might go unnoticed if their efforts are fragmented across multiple efforts. They won’t have time for focused work.
So, in terms of not even combat alone but having members in a unit that regularly interact with each other, by keeping the team male-only, research heavily implies that you're depriving the team of worthwhile female members who will keep team cohesion well and even work with more conscientiousness.
Another benefit that isn't often thought about is liabilities in unruly combatants and what that can do for the reputation of the overall armed forces of said nation/organisation. We need to remember that in the past, soldiers have participated in rapes (that are almost always male initiated in the armed forces, I'm not being sexist outside of that) and many other travesties that females are more likely to get empathetic towards the victims and snitch about.
A combat unit does not only attack, they at times guard, holding power and protection over others. They also interrogate prisoners of war and detainees. While you do not want a total pushover to do this, you also want people who are not full blown psychopaths or sociopaths doing it and this is where it becomes an important factor to consider who is responsible for the travesties of war crimes and terrible moral and reputation-scarring acts by combat units in the past.
Females have indeed committed war crimes, severe ones even. I am not denying that. What I do believe, however, is aside from the fact that they are females and rape-type war crimes are done to females, if we discuss tendencies and sex-based differences it goes beyond empathy here. I am talking about awareness and attention.
In every single respect (apart from the eyesight required in snipers) females edge out males in the ability to spot threats faster, on the other hand males react faster (we are talking milliseconds faster, whereas with the spotting it we are talking several seconds at times).
The female gender has proven to have greater hearing sensitivity and are more sensitive to noise exposure at higher frequencies. They also have shorter latencies in their auditory brain‐stem responses and more spontaneous otoacoustic emissions than men. Men are better at detecting binaural beats, sound localization, and detecting signals in complex masking tasks than women.
What Do Gray And White Matter Have To Do With Hearing?
Recent research findings have suggested that, indeed, men do listen differently from women due to gray and white matter, which controls muscular and sensory activities in the brain. Males have six times greater the amount of gray matter while women have ten times more white matter than men. A heavier reliance on gray matter helps men with localized tasks, while extra white matter assists women with language and communication. This means that women are more sensitive to sound compared to men.
It is all well and good to accentuate what males have over females as advantages but female combatants, in the unit, are going to make fantastic watchdog types. They will hear gunfire further, notice quiet footsteps and awaken to muffled voices in the distance faster. All kinds of ways this plays out. Not just noise either.
Previous studies that have looked for biological explanations for women’s apparent superior sense of smell have used brain scans to look for structural and volume differences. These have led to mixed results and left many questions still unanswered.So Roberto Lent, a professor in the Institute of Biomedical Sciences at Rio’s Federal University, and colleagues set out to measure the biological evidence more directly – by counting the number of cells in women’s and men’s olfactory bulbs.To this end they examined post-mortem brains from seven men and 11 women who were all healthy and aged over 55 when they died. None of the subjects had worked in jobs that required them to have exceptional sense of smell such as cookery or coffee-tasting.Using the isotropic fractionator, the team calculated the number of cells in the olfactory bulbs of these individuals and found that, on average, the women had 43% more cells in this brain region than the men. When they included only neurons in the count – that is leaving out other cells like glial or structural cells – this figure went up to nearly 50%.The olfactory bulb is the first region of the brain to receive signals about odors sensed via the nostrils.The authors acknowledge that just finding this difference is not enough to prove that women have a superior sense of smell – it is not even enough to explain the findings of previous studies about differences in ability to differentiate, identify and remember scents and odors. However, Prof. Lent suggests:“Generally speaking, larger brains with larger numbers of neurons correlate with the functional complexity provided by these brains. Thus, it makes sense to think that more neurons in the female olfactory bulbs would provide women with higher olfactory sensitivity.”Since the brain does not accumulate many more cells as we grow, it would seem that women are equipped with these extra olfactory cells from the day they are born.
Let me be clear here, the average female is 50% more effective at smelling than men are. That is an edge, whether you like it or not. If we need somebody to sense danger in the team faster than the others can physically spot it and register it in their brain as a genuine sensed input, females in the unit will massively benefit it, if even one is in the team.
A fundamental problem with Pro's approach to this debate.
BoP goalpost-moving aside, Pro has approached this debate as one of proving that it's more likely that a male who wants to be a combatant will be a very effective one, when compared with a female. The debate operates under the idea that we are selecting members for a combat unit and that this team is either all male or has one or more members that are female. Nothing about it implies that the females are 'maybes', they would already have passed training and be full-fledged field-ready combatants.
I am unsure what Pro believes at this point because I agree with Pro on the probability factor. It's like saying 'you are more likely to have children watching cartoons than adults' in a debate about who makes a better audience member for cartoons; a group of only children or a group with some children and some adults.
The real question in this debate isn't about likelihood of the males to pass their training, the real question is out of the minority of females who make the cut, is there any tangible reason to estimate that teams of all-males are better than teams of mixed sex composition.
I do not believe Pro has effectively tackled the topic and is instead proving something else.
- RM posted a series of different counterarguments, and I don't think any of them work. As you will find out, my opponent openly lies about what many of his sources say, and I will reveal this as I go along.
BOP and Con's case introduction.
- The BOP is pretty simple, I need to prove that male combat units are best off; defined as in the most favorable or advantageous position, and that I have. Here I will respond to some of his statements.
- RM "Pro is trying to turn this resolution into a somewhat axiomatic statement, given that it is true that out of all males, a higher percentage are cut-out for combat roles than the percentage among females"
- Incorrect. Rather, the resolution as always is a statement I am willing to use evidence to prove and uphold.
- The argument is that as defined as "in the most favorable or advantageous position," all-male combat units as defined as "a military unit whose organization, equipment, and training are designed to fit it to engage in combat," are best off that other variations.
- I have shown that men are better equipped to handle the training and that it has been proven that women harm the efficiency of combat units, and thirdly that it has been proven that male combat squad units surpassed mixed gender units across the board in a study conducted by the US marines themselves.
- RM "The case of Con is that the minority of women who make the cut have among them the absolute efficient and brilliant agents to not waste and in fact have edges males lack.
- CON concedes that significantly fewer women even pass the army fitness test.
- I trust my opponent will show which specific traits are "the absolute efficient and brilliant agents"
- RM: "The twist is that we are discussing if we knew nothing about the combatants other than their biological sex, we are more likely to form a team that will get the job done well if we go for males based on certain probability factors"
- Objection, strawman. If I posted a study that concludes that male combat squads outperform mixed-gender ones across the board and another large study that, like the US Marines study, shows how women make combat squads less efficient, that has nothing to do with probability and it isn't a claim based on the average biology of people. Those are just propositions directly from combat team research.
- RM: However, this debate is not framed that way, it is Pro twisting it that way"
- Notice how my opponent says that I am "twisting" the debate, while he provides no examples of this, and I mean not even one specific example of any statements of mine that he believes twists the debate.
- RM: "the title would leave one interpreting it as that if you knew enough and had researched enough to begin deciding who to hire, you're still better off having a team of all males than any other sex-based configuration"
- Okay? What is even the point here? I would certianly hope we are both providing studies to back up our arguments.
- RM: "This is what I am Con to in this debate, not the reworded probabilty/gambling dynamic where we know nothing about the combatants other than their sex"
- I provide multiple studies that compare mixed-gender military combat squads to male combat squads, so this statement doesn't say anything because it isn't even true or grounded in any reason.
- RM: "Furthermore, it is very important that the females and males have already passed their training. Nothing about the topic of this debate implied that recruits still in, or yet to undergo, training are part of the selected members of the unit. Therefore, any statistic relating to less females making the cut out of those that apply, has zero relevance because we would only ever be discussing those that did complete their training and are fully competent."
- This is the biggest fundamental understanding of how the military works. Does my opponent genuinely believe you "complete training" for a combat squad, and then just stop and never train again? Do I need to say this?
- "When they are not in combat, active component service members spend their days training for combat. Training takes place at their home station or at any number of training locations around the world. It is not unusual for an active component member to spend only one or two weeks at home out of every six to eight weeks. Training cycles are determined by their unit’s deployment cycle and deployment schedule" (Understanding the Military: The Institution, the Culture, and the People).
- Now, let us take RM's arguments apart.
- RM "Rather than dispute Pro continuously on every sexist notion made"
- So right off the bat CON accuses me of sexism, and I am not sure as to what he is speaking of seeing as CON does not give a single example of which specific claim is sexist. So I will ask CON, rather than saying this in general for whatever reason why not provide a specific example of the "sexist notion?"
- CON admits he will avoid disputing or refuting the studies I posted about male combat units being the most effective. Remember this; it will be a theme of his response.
- RM: Females are more likely to be superior at team cohesion and interpersonal relations and empathy (EQ) than males are.
- Okay: (1) team cohesion (2) interpersonal relations (3) empathy. RM has to prove this claim on all three of the fronts, and show how this actually would benefit a combat squad specifically. Take note of this, because RM does none of it.
- My opponent's first source will attempt to claim that gender-balanced teams work best in the office as its URL suggests.
- Why is this relevant? Every study I cited in the first round speaks specifically about the military and many about combat units explicitly and my opponent posts a study that talks about team projects in offices?
- This study is fully irrelevant, it doesn't introduce anything about combat units or military function, and it's at best a weak correlation study, and I will still show why it's deeply flawed. Let's get into it.
- The study is posted on a site called "Business news daily" for reference, this is the source.
- The article claims: "A study revealed that the gender composition of work teams makes a difference in team effectiveness. Gender-balanced teams outperform both predominantly male and predominantly female teams, the research showed"
- Okay, sure, so how do they outperform them?
- Well, the article claims: "Men in teams with a balanced female presence had more positive experiences than they did in teams with a majority of men, the researchers found.
- How does that prove anything? Just because people had a more positive experience doesn't mean they outperformed another group. Why not compare the actual work they did, and see whose was of better quality?
- They further state: "We examined the impact of team gender on several variables important to team success, including trust, cohesion, inclusion and task/relationship conflict," said Kaitlin Thomas.
- These are all completely subjective and difficult to measure points of data to measure, and the article does not even say what they did to measure this. Whether it was a survey, (which would be the worst), or observation. The article mentions none of this.
- On the trust point, more credible and significantly larger neuroscience research shows that women are much less trusting than men.
- A research article, published in Frontiers cognitive neuroscience section which publishes "publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research on cognitive neuroscience." In the study titled "Neural Signatures of Gender Differences in Interpersonal Trust," which cites several other meta-analyses, it is proven that men are more trusting and women are more sensitive to betrayal and less trusting.
- "Despite the high amount of trust across genders, men trusted more than women overall independently of payoff levels, while women decreased their trust with increasing payoff levels as a measure of social risk"
- "Women trust less than men, and this effect is stronger when the social risk increased for the trust decision"
- "Our findings that women are more sensitive to social risk while trusting have implications for various aspect of social life such as financial interactions, interpersonal relationships, and social structures" (Neural Signatures of Gender Differences in Interpersonal Trust).
- So, we now know men are actually more trusting than women.
- Back to cohesion: My opponent's source doesn't even say that females are superior in cohesion, so why does he claim this? The source doesn't even talk about males or females explicitly. It talks about different office teams and compares all-male and all-female teams to mixed-gender ones so why are you lying about what your source said?
- You claimed that "Females are more likely to be superior at team cohesion but your source doesn't even conclude anything about males or females and it doesn't even compare them to each other.
- It's clear my opponent just blatantly misrepresents what his sources say.
- My opponent posts another source that as the URL suggests, says will show that "in collaborative work cultures women carry more of the weight"
- Why is this another office work-study, with nothing to do about the military or combat units?
- The article states: "We recently studied three such organizations in-depth using a combination of surveys, interviews, and direct observation, and we noted a consistent theme: While everyone in the organization experienced collaboration overload, women felt the burden disproportionately."
- Wait, what? That is the evidence here women felt the burden disproportionately. So because on average women said they felt something, that means it is true? I can see why you chose to exclude this part from your quote.
- "First, studies have shown that women are more likely to care for the collective, which means they are more likely to step in when they see a gap or ambiguity"
- This quote hyperlinks a New York Times article that is impossible for me to access and attack due to a paywall, and CON does not even quote anything from the NYT article to either CON did not access it himself, or CON did not care to quote from the original link his source cites. It is CON's responsibility to provide evidence of his claims.
- "he found that women are more likely to agree with the statement 'Being a good team player means helping all of my colleagues with what they need to get done.' In contrast, men are more likely to agree with the statement 'Being a good team player is knowing your position and playing it well.'
- Why does my opponent keep posting studies about vague survey results, that don't show anything results of actions or work, and the direct results of projects in which women and men work together. This does not prove the claim that women are superior in anything because it does not show the results of anything that would suggest this. It only shows a survey prompt, and who responded more to a certain statement so it is once again at best a weak correlation.
- "Second, women are less likely to carve out time during the workday to focus on their top priorities, because they feel guilty or selfish for doing so"
- What does this even prove or mean? Is being in a combat unit not one's top priority, and what would be the workday in the situation? A work office and military combat are so dis-similar there isn't a basis where we can compare or analogize them here.
- RM: "Another benefit that isn't often thought about is liabilities in unruly combatants and what that can do for the reputation of the overall armed forces of said nation/organisation. We need to remember that in the past, soldiers have participated in rapes (that are almost always male initiated in the armed forces, I'm not being sexist outside of that)"
- You provide no sources evidence for this, but I will assume I can fill in the blanks, once again.
- Obviously of the very few times, one can imagine this occurs, because the overwhelming majority of soldiers are male. It's already rare enough that this isn't an issue with men, more of an issue with certain individuals if it does happen.
- RM: "Females have indeed committed war crimes, severe ones even. I am not denying that"
- CON concedes females have committed war crimes
- RM "In every single respect (apart from the eyesight required in snipers) females edge out males in the ability to spot threats faster, on the other hand males react faster (we are talking milliseconds faster, whereas with the spotting it we are talking several seconds at times)"
- CON does not even provide a single source of the claim that females spot threats faster. Why didn't they?
- CON concedes that women don't exceed male abilities in eyesight.
- CON concedes males react faster.
- Since CON does not provide a source for their claim, allow me to disprove it. According to research conducted at the University of Washington, males can detect visual motion better than females, so if anything, men can spot threats faster!
- "In an article published Aug. 16 in Current Biology, a University of Washington-led team of researchers says that on average, men pick up on visual motion significantly faster than women do" (UW news).
- CON makes up a claim without any evidence and although I could have easily cited Hitchens Razor, and dismissed it without evidence, I still prove it to be false.
- My opponent now attempts to argue that women have a better smell and this is somehow some large advantage. Let's see what RM gives us.
- RM: "Let me be clear here, the average female is 50% more effective at smelling than men are. That is an edge, whether you like it or not.
- Wait...what? My opponent doesn't even understand what his own sources said. The study found that the average woman has "women’s brains that have up to 50% more olfactory neurons." It never even mentions or talks about how effective they are at smelling, especially concerning men. That's not even what it means, you just...made this up.
- YOUR OWN SOURCE says "The authors acknowledge that just finding this difference is not enough to prove that women have a superior sense of smell – it is not even enough to explain the findings of previous studies about differences in ability to differentiate, identify and remember scents and odors" (Medical News Today).
- So my opponent once again explicitly lies about something in his sources and makes up a claim. They either didn't read their own sources or hoped no one would go through it and point out how it explicitly disagrees with them. Voters, please take note of this.
- RM "BoP goalpost-moving aside,
- CON says I have moved the goalposts.
- The resolution: Combat units are best off comprised of all men, rather than differing assortments.
- I provided two large studies, one conducted by the US Marines themselves that concluded male combat squads were the best off and outperformed mixed-gender squad units, so that must mean from providing two studies that confirm the resolution, the conclusion is that actional in of itself is moving the goalposts...ill let the voters decide how potentially ridiculous this claim is.
- CON does not even say how I moved the goalposts and provides no examples of this.
- RM: "Pro has approached this debate as one of proving that it's more likely that a male who wants to be a combatant will be a very effective one when compared with a female."
- This does not resemble anything I have said. I specifically proved that male combat units are more efficient and that men are better equipped to undergo combat training. This appears to be quite the strawman.
- I posted two studies, again, one conducted by the US marines themselves, that both concluded that male combat squads significantly performed mixed-gender ones, and the second along with the first showed the specific weaknesses and inefficiencies of mixed-gender squads.
- RM: "The debate operates under the idea that we are selecting members for a combat unit and that this team is either all male or has one or more members that are female.
- No...The debate is simply an attempt to prove or disprove that male combat units are best off that other assortments. I don't even know what you are saying here.
- There are three possibilities here; 1. an all-male combat unit (which I argue is best off), 2. mixed-gender combat units which the Marines study showed underperformed and were inefficient in comparison to male combat squad units, or 3. an all-female combat unit which likely would never exist.
- RM: "Nothing about it implies that the females are 'maybes', they would already have passed training and be full-fledged field-ready combatants"
- Again, do you think that military squads "pass training" and never train again, or do you think combat units have regular training? RM repeats this claim, and I have responded to it above.
- RM: "The real question in this debate isn't about likelihood of the males to pass their training, the real question is out of the minority of females who make the cut, is there any tangible reason to estimate that teams of all-males are better than teams of mixed sex composition."
- Yes, there absolutely is. Many large studies two of which I have included, one conducted by the US marines themselves show weaknesses of mixed-gender squads, and how all-male squads performed the best across the board. This included women that have passed the fitness teat and gone through basic combat training (also known as "boot camp"). This is a question that I addressed directly in round one.
Arguments and extensions
- RM asks this question: "is there any tangible reason to estimate that teams of all-males are better than teams of mixed-sex composition."
- Sure, this is frustrating, but I will assume that it's something that takes all that was avoided by my opponent in round one: let's drive these points home.
- "All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed-gender units across the board. The males were more accurate in hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries (NPR).
- All male squads have been proven to be more accurate shooters
- "Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found" (Washinton Post).
- CON lies about his sources multiple times, and I have proven almost every claim he made to be false, as well as upheld the resolution.
- Please vote PRO!
- Seeing as my opponent forfeited the second round, I will specifically list out these actions I proved CON to have exhibited in round one. CON can either address them, concede them, or avoid owning up to them.
- CON lied or misrepresented his "business news daily" source on workplace teams
- CON lied about what his source said about male and female hearing.
- CON provides no source for this claim: "females edge out males in the ability to spot threats faster"
- We now know that CON has both forfeited and remained to address the evidence of him lying about multiple sources.
- Let's agree that both misrepresentation/lying, not providing sources, and forfeiture are conduct violations of different severities.
- And therefore CON must now justify multiple severe conduct violations that voters should consider in their decisions.
- It is resolved that "combat units are best off comprised of all men, rather than differing assortments."
- Best off: has been defined by Oxford English Dictionary as "in the most favorable or advantageous position" for this debate.
- Let's look at what CON has conceded in round one.
- CON concedes that significantly fewer women even pass the army fitness test.
- CON concedes that women don't exceed male abilities in eyesight for snipers.
- CON concedes males react faster.
- CON appears to have conceded the injury point in one sweeping general statement.
- CON first attempted to attack the BOP of the debate, whereas I refuted every statement he made concerning it, so we can consider that covered
- Let's look at what CON has dropped thus far.
- CON drops the argument citing the US marines study, and a study conducted in the UK that proved women generally make combat units less efficient, and that all-male squad units outperformed mixed-gender units across the board.
- So large studies have confirmed that combat units are in the most favorable or advantageous position when compared comprised of all men, rather than differing assortments. CON just drops this argument altogether.
- Here, I will round conclude my arguments for this debate.
- Let's agree that men are better equipped to undergo the various forms of training that combat units go through, as I proved in round one.
- They have a lower propensity to injury as I proved in round one.
- Therefore men are better equipped to undergo one of the most important combat unit functions.
- Let's talk about cohesiveness and efficiency.
- Let's agree that if all-male combat units are more cohesive, that is a significant point towards the combination being the most favorable or advantageous position.
- An article published in Independent, reports on research conducted that shows the potential distractions that can occur in mixed-gender combat units. Women have a significant impact on male psychology.
- "The Dutch scientists have been studiously polite about their findings. That 2009 experiment had shown that males are "prone to engage in effortful and cognitively demanding attempts to impress an opposite-sex partner". The new study shows that, unlike women, men "perceive relatively neutral situations in sexualised terms" (Independent).
- Combat units are primed to be efficient, focused, driven, and ordered. We have seen that evidence shows that women present a considerable distraction to male combat soldiers.
- And therefore, we can say that all-male combat squads are in a more favorable or advantageous position given the distractions that make come mixed-gender combat units that reduce efficiency and cohesion.
- I want to emphasize how clearly one-sided this debate has been thus far.
- Remember that "All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed-gender units across the board. The males were more accurate in hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries (NPR).
- We know that males have faster reactions, lower rates of injury, better eyesight, and ability of detection; "men pick up on visual motion significantly faster than women do" (UW news).
- In C2 of this round, I discuss cohesiveness and efficiency. Research reveals to is that unlike women men "perceive relatively neutral situations in sexualized terms," and thus women provide a considerable distraction to men in combat units.
- Every argument RM makes in his round one was refuted, and it was shown that he explicitly lied about AT LEAST ONE of his sources, and blatantly mispresented another.
- We can determine that I have upheld the resolution, while my opponent fails to even argue against it.
- We can also determine that RM forfeits the second round, so he is yet to address any of my arguments at all.
- And that being said, we have reached the end of my arguments, responses, and rounds of this debate, considering all of this.
- All male teams are the best iteration of combat units. I have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Let's say to the one person that despite every argument I have made that I have not convinced yet, then be convinced that CON openly lies about his sources, and misrepresents them. Given that conduct is included in the voting system, I trust the voters to respond accordingly, and I will thank them in advance for doing so.
Let's discuss the 'lying' about sources. Pro lied to you about basically all of his own sources under the same scope of 'lying' as is being applied to me.
The 2 lies consistently told by Pro are as follows:
1. The source, if actually Pro banning women from military, was always referring to the fact that less women are cut out for the role out of a group. This means that the females that make the cut are less. For instance, that bag-throwing exercise? It was done with people still in training, check his source and how it was carried out, all the females were still in training. What we are discussing is that if we have fully trained women, are they competent in the squad or is it at an inherent disadvantage without them.
2. Most of Pro's sources did support ruling out women in the military, they mainly focused on the fact that less women are making the cut during training.
I am not accusing Pro of lying about his sources, I am discussing how easily lying can be misconstrued. I did not lie about my sources. Female humans do have a better sense of smell, hearing, touch and taste than male humans do. The olfactory receptors being much more densely populated in women's does indeed link to their superior sense of smell. Just as Pro quoted a part of it that conceded that the olfactor receptors alone don't prove that, it also says this:
“Generally speaking, larger brains with larger numbers of neurons correlate with the functional complexity provided by these brains. Thus, it makes sense to think that more neurons in the female olfactory bulbs would provide women with higher olfactory sensitivity.”
Since the brain does not accumulate many more cells as we grow, it would seem that women are equipped with these extra olfactory cells from the day they are born.
There are still many questions to explore, including why women should have this ability hard-wired into their brains, and what mechanism produces this greater quantity of olfactory cells in the female brain.
I admit, openly now, that I should have used another source on top of it which explained that women consistently outperform men at smell sensitivity tests and that this medical news article was exploring a neurological vs sensory reasoning as to why. What the article was saying is that it isn't the brain receptors alone, related to smell, being denser populated that definitively make the smell superior in females.
I have no got the slightest clue why Pro would call this lying other than to intentionally deceive you.
I did not misrepresent any of my sources at all, Pro is saying that unless the source has 100% the same narrative that I have in my debate that I am somehow lying but that is a ridiculous scope to cover 'lying about a source' or even misrepresenting. I continually quoted portions of sources, how can I be lying when I didn't even add a narrative to lie?
As for this debate it boils down to what we are debating.
We are debating if fully trained combatants inherently are superior if male or not. Nothing Pro gave you proves this, nor has Pro made clear what the debate is about.
You see, either the debate is that fully trained men are better than fully trained women for combat (and I totally disagree with this) or it's that a combat unit of totally random humans is better if all-male. The fact is if Pro is going for the latter interpretation, that's goalpost moving at its extreme and completely unreasonable to presume is meant.