Instigator / Pro
7
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2800
On Balance, Single-sex Schooling should be Discouraged in the US
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1491
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Single sex: designated for, pertaining to, or serving only males or only females.
No transgender arguments allowed. This considers biological sex and not gender.
Burden of proof is shared.
Pro will argue that we should not support the idea of single sex education in the US, as the detriments outweigh the positives. Con argues that we SHOULD support single sex education because positives outweigh negatives.
Round 1
Pro
#1
My sole contention is Sex Segregation and Decreased Social Skills.
in the US we value equality and acceptance to trump nearly all other values. Yet single sex schooling obstructs us from achieving this. As a famous psychologist expert Lynn Liben realizes, gender stereotypes are extended with the single sex schooling. Firstly, she notes "our examination of the existing studies leads us to conclude that there is not scientific evidence for positive effects of single-sex schooling," said Liben [1].
For arbitrary reasons, we prevent one sex from interacting with the other. In order for Con to win, he must at least show significant education achievement. Because on a legal status, "in 2006 the U.S. Department of Education reinterpreted Title IX -- public schools are now legally allowed to segregate classes or even entire schools on the basis of sex, but only if they show that the division is related to important governmental or educational objectives."
But currently, the separation only causes more division among children. As Liben furthers: "She found that after two weeks of teachers using gendered language and divisions -- lining children up by gender and asking boys and girls to post work on separate bulletin boards -- the students showed an increase in gender-stereotyped attitudes toward each other and their choice of toys, and they played less with children of the other sex." As they cause this unconscious bias, sexism and perhaps even racism would extend towards the future, making it difficult to correct these attitudes. We must begin from a young age and prevent inequality when possible.
Another expert Fabes agrees with this notion, saying "there is little scientific evidence that shows teaching boys and girls in separate public school classrooms is advantageous over teaching in coed classes" [2]. He adds on the fact that less interaction with opposite sex hinders a student's social ability. He counters with a co-ed program's benefits: "A primary goal of the Sanford Harmony Program is to produce better relationships between boys and girls in classes, thereby allowing them to communicate, work, collaborate and form friendships. Research shows that children who are able to play with both girls and boys tend to have good social skills, according to ACCE" [2]. As a result, we prevent students from naturally mingling together. Social skills are crucial for schools to teach, as it is one of the skills to help them later out in life.
Indeed, even a meta-analysis of 184 studies -- more trustworthy than a single study alone -- concludes "Controlled studies, however, showed only trivial differences between students in SS versus CE, for mathematics performance (g = 0.10 for girls, 0.06 for boys) and science performance (g = 0.06 for girls, 0.04 for boys), and in some cases showed small differences favoring CE schooling (e.g., for girls’ educational aspirations, g = −0.26). Separate analyses of U.S. studies yielded similar findings (e.g., for mathematics performance g = 0.14 for girls and 0.14 for boys). Results from the highest quality studies, then, do not support the view that SS schooling provides benefits compared with CE schooling." [3] Clearly, Fabes and Liben know what they're talking about. Not only are there next to no differences in academic performance, the segregation is arbitrary and unrealistic. When you grow up you will have to interact with all sexes in work and in public. Why would you hinder this in education?
Con
#2
The dynamics in having both sexes in a learning environment is critical for the heavy majority of the student body. Please allow me too elaborate. The education system is for the most part to gear our youth in preparation too find employment, new found relationships, self reflecting ect ect.... So in my argument you will find me expressing how the similarities and differences. Plus how huge benefits usually are over looked by stories of misfortunes like rapes, drop outs and even deaths. That so often create fear amongst the public. So for my first example.....
In the work force men and women will work side by side.
There are many challenges for learning how to be employed and stable. Many times men and women will go through multiple jobs until they have enough experience and practice too hold down a job let alone trying to figure out and understand mingling with the other sex at the same time. So having a schools where there learning how to find patience, tolerance, acceptance, and understanding on working with each other starts in school. when we create environments like all male and or all female schools. We create a system of separatism. This greatly enhances a negative response in learning about the other sex. Usually justified by there peers as they are likely trying to form there own conclusion. This creates fear and cognitive dissidence. Now fear is an irrational response in us from a primitive time to create the fight flight or freeze syndrome's. which was our evolution preventing us to flee from say a bear at night deep in the woods. Science has statistics claiming 99.9% of our fears are never real. Why this sways as great importance would be things like being a boss you must be able too read men and women to know who too hire and where they would fit best. As well as lead hands need to do the same. As the individual, it allows a good sense of self reflection too know if the job is right for them. This has huge benefits from companies being more productive better moods in individuals and more flexibility. There is only a suddle few that don't need such a dynamic start to prepare them self for the world ahead. This also adds to there ability too dismiss others idiosyncrasies' as simple and understood. Could you imagine how conflicted things would be if all schools where set males with males and females with females in this high population. In the old days people would grudgingly due business with others out of mere survival. If they didn't they wouldn't eat.
My second example is in the benefits in relationships friends/spouses.
During your youth you are more receptible to have fluctuation in your intrinsic value system. Their for having the building blocks too understanding who you gel with and who you don't. As a youth we have the tendency too create problems too find solutions for them until we realize this is a pointless thing too do and then we grow up. being in a learning environment we are already exercising our minds which creates a faster and more profound growth in building relationship's. As well as having great support for its down falls like first break ups and such. Now you might argue that in this creates the malevolence that we ot too try and avoid. But others doing bad things allow the majority too see why and how these things are wrong and do a lot a growth as a reflection. Having teachers in this mix also creates a sense of authority and supervision on children which might be very well hidden from there parents. I personally found some women I went too school with gave me a run for my money in gifts like Humanities, arts, music. ect... This in my experience really opened my eyes in the similarities amongst men and women in learning and was a great source back and forth for new idea's on essays, artistic idea's and even recreational events. and it was always shared freely. Was never really competitive although i think i wished it was. Its in my nature. This creates more dynamics in the individual as we become less one dimensional. A lot of the time people will find there life long friends in school as it is much more difficult too find and keep once in a working environment.
My third example in my opening argument will be less optimistic but in the challenge does have some benefits. Self reflecting.
There are many students who go through school who do not have a great family dynamic and live through the experience of other students. So going to school with men and women open an avenue to live precariously through the experience of others. A daughter with out a father a son with out a mother. The nature of what is missing in the child/youth upbringing can be shared amongst observation of other students. This adds great value too self reflecting. Which is no stretch to the imagination too see how it lessons or prevents the major bad behaviors in society today that create enormous and sometimes irreversible problems. There also can be a lot of strength gained from being supportive to though who have such trials and tribulations.
These are just a few things of many that can have some too profound benefits too society, self and connections. I am curious tooo see what your rebuddle will be. 8)
Round 2
Pro
#3
Not only does Con have many spelling mistakes (may I recommend Grammarly)? He mistakenly argued for Pro side of the debate, and all of his arguments help me. I will give them another chance to recuperate.
Con
#4
So now we have gone over some of the positive benefits and now I will go Into why the benefits don't out way the negatives. Starting out with using an idea from Fredrich Neitzsche.....
One basis of Fredrich Nietzsche is The concept of the herd mentality. In which the majority of thinking and behavior can be put into a box. But there is also the rare few that think outside the box. This is where mans next best steps have great potential. Do too years of oppression too great thinkers. Which had consequences like the death penalty {including torture}. It would be naïve too think there has been many comprehensive minds that did not care too share the lime light. As well as wars, famine, disease ect.. Now a great mind has the potential too move man big leaps into the furthering the benefits of man kind. So in truth there really hasn't been much of a platoe for individuals to flourish with this different type of thinking. They tend too leave great imprints on how society see's the world.
This becomes very problematic for the argument, That having both sexes put together in a class room would be beneficial. We have already seen and are able too study examples of why this hinders our society. for example the market for useless spending on items we don't need. Mixing sexes in schools create voids and too early in life with all the exploratory idea's I explained before. This drives away some of our great thinkers into addictions, suicide, anti socialisms ect ect... In our day and age it is easy too see how it isn't the mixing of the sexes in the classroom more so how the system is put in place. Instinct is relative enough too have things like procreation, relationships, interest's and hobbies. Having differences even if small between men and women cause limitations on idea's this way and cause a lot of conflict for example if men are slightly more competitive. They will push each other too have a better understanding of an idea. As for women if they tend to nurture more often there idea's then there growth becomes more balanced and steady. So this more comes down too the argument what creates more benefit us creating better systems for the next generation too come. or is it for the individual of today. Instinctually we want too survive as a species. So any benefit we can grasp today perpetuates and multiplies. From generation too generation. But if we way too the comfort of the common thinking today. We slow down that process and just enhance a generation or too. Which by far is in no comparison too a continuum that's generational.
This also needs too factor in how this effects the world today with endless spending on things you don't need. as well as not having moderation as we see this generation spending a lot of time playing video games and other antisocial practices. So having mixed schools you see today pornography in video games, gambling, drugs. AS well as on regular tv. The comfort of the sexes has created this trivial effect on the population. for example you can see it on the ratings of Acceptability on basic tv. When I was young using the word ass was rare and a tv show would never go beyond that where things like murder mayhem are now almost expected. In part of the eastern world you can see examples where there is boys and and girls in separate schools not following the same suite. Nick naming the western world more as a playboy culture. Maintaining growth in population continues this problem. We see that in places like japan and china. Where a male child can be preferred. This has caused a spike in homosexuality due too lack of women studies have shown. This is all chaos created by benefitting the herd mentality of a social construct. Idealized on what's best for the individual not the next generations. In the western world you see more and more extremisms as well in views, behaviors, ect... Coming from a generation freely put into class rooms of both sections. None of which can't be related too a mixed school system. Even if we gave major support too the children of both sexes. This would still continue because of human natures. One could also contend how its killing the planet. We are hunter gathers by nature and to fully go too just relying on consciousness is too one dimentaul.
We have learned more then enough of what happens when we mix sexes in the class room . But we have not entertained the practice of allowing the individual too flourish in there strength. In an environment with less distractions. This is why in high school they give you a list of 10 000 job opportunities and say pick 1. What a way to confuse a child. But doesn't matter the system isn't meant for the individual strengths. Its meant too dabble across all different learnings. They say this is the age of the group. As they are in business and government. We can continue educating the next generation like this and watch things continue too get out of hand. Or we slow down things like population growth, addiction, suicide by taking away one of the biggest contributors. That is mixing the sexes in the class room. the hurd is plenty. The free thinker is not.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Con's argument is extremely confusing to me and has no sources, hence, everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Let me reformat it for reader's enjoyment:
One basis of Fredrich Nietzsche is The concept of the herd mentality.In which the majority of thinking and behavior can be put into a box. But there is also the rare few that think outside the box. This is where mans next best steps have great potential. Do too years of oppression too great thinkers. Which had consequences like the death penalty {including torture}. It would be naïve too think there has been many comprehensive minds that did not care too share the lime light. As well as wars, famine, disease ect.. Now a great mind has the potential too move man big leaps into the furthering the benefits of man kind. So in truth there really hasn't been much of a platoe for individuals to flourish with this different type of thinking. They tend too leave great imprints on how society see's the world.
Is Con arguing that co-educational schools oppresses great thinkers? Let's continue.
This becomes very problematic for the argument, That having both sexes put together in a class room would be beneficial. We have already seen and are able too study examples of why this hinders our society. for example the market for useless spending on items we don't need. Mixing sexes in schools create voids and too early in life with all the exploratory idea's I explained before. This drives away some of our great thinkers into addictions, suicide, anti socialisms ect ect...In our day and age it is easy too see how it isn't the mixing of the sexes in the classroom more so how the system is put in place. Instinct is relative enough too have things like procreation, relationships, interest's and hobbies. Having differences even if small between men and women cause limitations on idea's this way and cause a lot of conflict for example if men are slightly more competitive. They will push each other too have a better understanding of an idea. As for women if they tend to nurture more often there idea's then there growth becomes more balanced and steady.So this more comes down too the argument what creates more benefit us creating better systems for the next generation too come. or is it for the individual of today. Instinctually we want too survive as a species. So any benefit we can grasp today perpetuates and multiplies. From generation too generation. But if we way too the comfort of the common thinking today. We slow down that process and just enhance a generation or too. Which by far is in no comparison too a continuum that's generational.
So is he arguing that mixed sex schools would create depression and mental issues? That because of women and men's difference, they will push them apart? But won't this be even worse in the work place? Recall my round 1 argument that your decreased social skills would be worse off in the future. And hence the logic of this argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Throughout your life you will have to make up with different people and cooperate with those the opposite of your personalities. I say it is better to do it in a fostered environment with teacher's help rather than wait until you are grown up to try tackling the problem.
This also needs too factor in how this effects the world today with endless spending on things you don't need. as well as not having moderation as we see this generation spending a lot of time playing video games and other antisocial practices.So having mixed schools you see today pornography in video games, gambling, drugs. AS well as on regular tv. The comfort of the sexes has created this trivial effect on the population. for example you can see it on the ratings of Acceptability on basic tv. When I was young using the word ass was rare and a tv show would never go beyond that where things like murder mayhem are now almost expected. In part of the eastern world you can see examples where there is boys and and girls in separate schools not following the same suite. Nick naming the western world more as a playboy culture. Maintaining growth in population continues this problem.We see that in places like japan and china. Where a male child can be preferred. This has caused a spike in homosexuality due too lack of women studies have shown. This is all chaos created by benefitting the herd mentality of a social construct. Idealized on what's best for the individual not the next generations. In the western world you see more and more extremisms as well in views, behaviors, ect... Coming from a generation freely put into class rooms of both sections. None of which can't be related too a mixed school system. Even if we gave major support too the children of both sexes. This would still continue because of human natures. One could also contend how its killing the planet. We are hunter gathers by nature and to fully go too just relying on consciousness is too one dimentaul.We have learned more then enough of what happens when we mix sexes in the class room . But we have not entertained the practice of allowing the individual too flourish in there strength. In an environment with less distractions. This is why in high school they give you a list of 10 000 job opportunities and say pick 1. What a way to confuse a child. But doesn't matter the system isn't meant for the individual strengths. Its meant too dabble across all different learnings.They say this is the age of the group. As they are in business and government. We can continue educating the next generation like this and watch things continue too get out of hand. Or we slow down things like population growth, addiction, suicide by taking away one of the biggest contributors. That is mixing the sexes in the class room. the hurd is plenty. The free thinker is not.
Con claims that mixed gender causes problems such as porn, gambling, drugs, driving forth extreme ideals. But I don't know how this actually is unique to the mixed gender classrooms. He says the more you see the "extreme problems", the more they are normalized, but doesn't tell us how single sex schools solve this issue. He finally gets to the point where single sex schools may have less distractions, but he doesn't tell us why or how. As far as I'm concerned, the academic performance remains the same. And I don't understand why mere choosing of sex separation would have any impact on these big problems. Please tell me why.
Con has still dropped my core argument that Separation of sexes causes an inequality in the school system, and stunts their social growth later on in life. My case still stands.
Con
#6
having single sex schools to be more beneficial doesn't mean that there can't be some positives in coed schooling like practicing social skills. Which is nothing you couldn't do with adding a curriculum. In a single coed environment such as elementary and high school. You could have a class where you teach the truth and untruths of how to interact between sexes. The debate isn't specifically what benefits do coed schools have. That wouldn't be a debate. I would suggest pro give a little credit too the audience and there ability too understand the difference.
My argument clearly stated That even if a coed school has some benefits. That time would always prove that a single sex education will have more benefit . Do too progressions in every area of life. From the benefits of free thinkers and how they can potentially move things forward in big steps. Each step being enhanced further by more great thinkers. Having a snow ball effect. in society and in better understandings.
I also will argue that my grammar and spelling have nothing to do with statistical properties. This is just a distraction too avoid the audience from taking my points seriously. I could right my argument in French completely changing the letters, sounds and even too male and female enhancements in the descriptions. This has no effect in statistics and facts. Which you clearly seem too suggest I add more too on my con argument. But that's a different debate for a different time.
But I will indulge in your requests non the less.
Do you have any proof that bullying in school doesn't exists today? how about school pregnancies? Are they also non existing, What about joy riding? School shooting?
Are you claiming these things have actually decreased in the last 50 years. How has this coed actually added to preparing relationships when clearly all these things are increasing under the watch of coed education. Or does this prove that its not the coed or even same sex schooling that is the problem. Further more post education, Dentists are 1 of the most potential social statistics for suicide. How about mail men and there shootings. You don't have too go much further then reading a newspaper too clearly see that these matters aren't getting resolved with a coed system and its ability too create more social understandings.
I am open too agree that coed and same sex schooling both can have the same effect.... But then this completely deflates your opening argument as well as myself saying the benefits socially it can have coed or same sex. We can continue too add new arguments? Why do I say it deflates it? Because the problem creates the solution and the solution creates the problem. Its just evaluating contrast which always has a pro and con too it. So never actually is beneficial in itself. Just creates an understanding.
Too clarify for the reader: pro is using phycology/sociology statistics { which by the way is the only doctrine that doesn't study the body parts they treat} Which is not widely viewed as relative in the scientific community. Human beings feel things in different degree's and somethings are proportionality different then the other. For example for 1 person breaking a nail can mean the difference of a good day and a bad day. But for another person it means nothing at all. So there is no validity in these statistics that are being put forward by pro they are merely speculative. Based on an observation. Unless these studies where put under brains cans during the experiments too see what lights up in the brain. Which has never been done in a public school.
So my argument that same sex schools not only have the potential to have men and women further growth in there strengths unlike coed. I also will add that having same sex schools where how we where educating our children in the earlier parts of the 19 hundreds. It is in that generation that the idea of having a coed schooling system was created. As a result of a all male secular educating system. It is a good example of a good idea going bad. Bad being the coed system isn't working causing deuteriation of things like freedom of speech on university campuses'. bigotry's amongst men and women {hence why there are more different derogatory things too say too each other}, bullying hasn't gotten any better in coed classrooms, Abortions, suicides, ect ect.
summary having same sex education creating a few great thinker can have more benefit by far then a coed system managing the the masses from the coed.
I realize being a deep thinker I have the tendency to put a lot to digest in a short period of time so all pause here.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Con tries his best but offers no backing once again for single sex schooling. He tries to dismiss my study based on the idea that we can't perfectly predict human behavior, but different schools, majors, and teachers can compensate for the problems. In addition, 184 studies combined together are quite rigorous and suggesting a very strong correlation, even if not perfect. His sole argument that holds any weight says:
So my argument that same sex schools not only have the potential to have men and women further growth in there strengths unlike coed. I also will add that having same sex schools where how we where educating our children in the earlier parts of the 19 hundreds. It is in that generation that the idea of having a coed schooling system was created. As a result of a all male secular educating system. It is a good example of a good idea going bad. Bad being the coed system isn't working causing deuteriation of things like freedom of speech on university campuses'. bigotry's amongst men and women {hence why there are more different derogatory things too say too each other}, bullying hasn't gotten any better in coed classrooms, Abortions, suicides, ect ect.
Con claims many problems haven't gotten better in co-ed but once again has no source. I don't know why he thinks that co-educational schools are extra biased against each other and bullying plus suicide would be more common. Recall that my studies show you extend the gender stereotypes in a single-sex schools when you haven't experienced what being with the opposite gender is like. It feels like exposure to opposite gender would make you more tolerant rather than less tolerant.
In conclusion, Con did his best and valiantly proposed many flaws of co-educational schools, but without single-sex schooling resolving these problems, I'm left with no unique benefits for Con side. He has still not contested about the mediocre academic performance combined with the arbitrary separation leads to detrimental values. We value bringing people together and unifying students together. Vote for pro.
Con
#8
Same sex schools advantages
1} less distractions 2} boys and girls have different interests, 3} boys and girls learn at different rates 4} boys and girls curriculums can change accordingly to the same sex.
5 encourages the individuals strengths to grow. 6} some girls and boys feel more secure in same sex environments. 7} playground safety. this list can continue on and on.
Pro's effort too try and gear this debate in this direction has been noticed by con since round 1. Each point although having validity. Don't even come close to the main benefits too having a same sex school which I might add. A lot can be seen in what I have put so far in my argument. pro would like too see this because these points are easily debatable. If you need a reference point. The Virginia Satir model {known as the iceberg theory}. Written in 1937 and is still revered as valid. There is also a bunch of spin off of this like the personality colors ect. mark twain did his own spin off as well. having said that pointing out the negatives of coed schools in particular are strengths in my argument. Not only am I putting idea's like allowing free thinkers too flourish. But I am referring too how the coed have a negative impact on these area's.
I also would like to point out that studies have shown that trying too make things more egalitarian. Have the opposite effect on the choices for men and women. When choosing things like careers. Children are no different In this matter. This raises a huge question should we be mixing schools. How will this effect the next generations gnome. Biologically at a cellular level we re act. For example when we are hungry our cells scream out "feed me". This also happens when we feel something like sad, happy, excited ect. So school is a huge portion of life before we have our own families. putting boys and girls together in times like puberty and then trying to cram them together might come at a big cost. If having boys and girls in the same schools has any benefits this way we have no idea. Its only been put into place the last 50 years. Perhaps it might have a terrible effect. We just don't know. Having boys with boys and girls with girls doesn't push this agenda. So generically its safer too keep boys and girls separate if we can like schools. I argue until we know more about this it isn't safe to have coed and should go back to secular. .
With having same sex schools we can also have different courses that benefit each sex. Maybe even new types of classes we have never seen before. tailored for the needs of each sex. That would not really be ethical in a coed environment. Things that would be too embarrassing for most in a coed environment. Things like masturbation, periods, being beat up. All can be harder too discus as example around the opposite sex. But wouldn't be nearly as much in a same sex classroom. Men might want to create say a sport of there own specific to men. Women might want too create a class room that gets into the benefits of having a career or family or both. There also could be better studies done on the nature of schools in a same sex environment today. Which 50 years ago we couldn't do because we weren't as advanced as back then so opens a whole new topic of research.
pause
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Not too much to say here. Pro's side of the debate includes a referenced argument that largely functions as pre-rebuttal for the potential educational benefits of same sex schools and a referenced point about the social benefits of co-education. Con's responses introduce a number of potential problems, but he provides no evidence to support their actuality, which means they exist largely as theory. In fact, of the 7 points Con iterates in his final round, the first 5 all have impacts that are directly contradicted by Pro's R1 argument, and the remaining two, while suggesting important benefits to security and well-being that go beyond education, lack the support to be meaningfully compared (either by degree of impact or by likelihood of occurrence) with Pro's arguments.
Sources go to Pro because he's the only one who provided them. No matter how Con tries to construe those sources by arguing that everything is individualized, he never provides a meaningful rebuttal to Pro's sources, which makes his responses only vague allusions to possible problems.
S&G also goes to Pro. I rarely award this point, but I had to read back through sentences many times in each round to understand what Con meant. It's worth doing some proofreading after you write this up, otherwise you can confuse your voters.
I'll try to get to it.
care for a quick glance?
bump?
up for some feedback? Con's case was nearly unparsable to me, perhaps you'd do better.
Thank you for your patients in this debate. I have to start somewhere. I will have too work on my fat finger syndrome 8). We should have another debate down the road. I think It would be more entertaining for both of us. once I get a healthy idea of the format. I am Going too have too figure out how to link Things in my debates. So I am not going by my knowledge in subjects. That should up my game a bit and give it some challenge too it. I keep wanting too put ways too improve the school system instead of just debating the topic. A lot is because I am trying to get familure too what Is happening then what I should being what next in the debate.
Ok thank you for the insight. I never expected too do well on my first debate. But I should of read through more of them to be more prepared.
As the Contender it is your responsibility to interpret the resolution and fulfill the burden necessarily assigned
I was hoping too get into this debate. I haven't got into any of the good stuff yet like how this effect a persons neuroplasticity or at a cellular level yet. How it can define someone getting pregnant and the issue's that creates like abortions'. How The biology in area's of of sexual conduct are strong on youth and what impact that can have on an individual. How its inappropriate to infiltrate someone's personal consciousness in Delegating someone. All the ditty wah ditty behind some of these statistical arguments for coed. This can be a fun debate. does anyone know a busy debate sight where I might find more consistent debating?
Mediator {undefeatable} I need a bit more elaboration on what you are wanting. Are we just covering too a certain grade. Where is your line cross on say when it becomes a private matter in education? example a university student no longer is in general guided schooling and has now made a choice to become something. This can really change the dynamic of the debate. For one is pre structured and the other is built as you go and becomes more of an individuals choice.
I'm using spell check but yea I said the grammar would be my issue. This is my first online debate So i'm trying to grasp the concept of it. Weather people do point form or use facts or use examples ect.. I see you like too use statistics? statistics are so limited for a debate because there just a by product of understanding. Or is this common amongst most debates on here. ?
Just continue all add a twist countering my opening its no biggy. As long as you don't feel like i'm trying to steel your thunder for that is not my intent
I'm not the instigator, you'll have to ask him.
mek I think i was suppose too appose the the argument. Which I can due as well but would have too scratch the first round sorry first attempt at a debate format. I can just continue from the second round.. up too you.
The only person/people that can benefit from your argument is the very few who live life never having a job and or social construct. If you lay out your argument we can get started 8)
I am gifted with free thinking and a curious mind pick any topic doesn't matter too me. My grammar and spelling will probably the only place I fail. But it says on my end waiting for you too respond first. I wish you good luck and understanding.
Welcome to the site! Though... unless you’re dedicated you probably chose the wrong opponent lol
I see no significant expert research that differentiates all boys from all girls. You are free to tell voters that arbitrarily discouraging female sex schools, while only male schools are a problem, creates an absurd inequality that cannot be sustained. If you can win "female schooling should be encouraged [pro]", you can win this debate as well.
Do you mean both female and male schools or just encouraging female schools is enough?
All-male environments, especially when it comes to teens and young adults, are highly toxic. Testosterone makes them cruel to each other and dog-eat-dog. Females are very necessary to act as neutralising agents. It is not that the average male is superbly more toxic than the average female, it's more that the general average snowballs towards aggression and competitiveness with no mercy on anyone.
All-female schools are actually beneficial to females and often the bullying is done to a lesser extent than is seen in mixed schools where females are picking on each other.
So, for females the answer is probably not but it's been proven that in ALL cultures, all-male schools emotionally scar and brutally 'toughen up' the males involved and they often have PTSD symptoms deep into adulthood, guys need females to soothe the environment and distract the testosterone fuelled jocks.