Instigator
Points: 21

Single-sex education

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Tiwaz
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Education
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
29,999
Required rating
1500
Contender
Points: 16
Description
Single-sex education refers to both classes and schools that have only one sex, defined by a biological classification.
Rules
1: Burden of proof is shared.
2: No new arguments in the final round.
3: Voters must meet the voting policy expressed in the CoC guidelines. Location: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Round 1
Published:
Introduction
 
I will be arguing for the implementation of Single-sex education into the United States'. Specifically, the basic education system - (primary and secondary). There are many reasons to implement this system, some of which I will provide below. 
 
Arguments
 
A.) It would allow us to tailor education towards both male and female learners.
 
Boys and girls learn differently, with this difference being most pronounced in younger learners. [2]
 
They also behave and think/process differently. [1]
 
C.) It would increase motivation for both boys and girls. [3]
 
D.) It would increase academic achievement for both boys and girls. [4]
 
Conclusion
 
Single-sex education is more effective for both inclusion and achievement. Keep in mind, this is by no means a comprehensive list of the benefits of single-sex education.
 
Sources
 
[1]: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ895692.pdf 
[2]:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232497577_Making_the_grade_but_feeling_distressed_Gender_differences_in_academic_performance_and_internal_distress
[3]: https:/
[4]: http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-singlesexvscoed.htm#major - Specifically the nationwide studies, there are many which you can research listed.

More relevant citations available (upon request).

Published:
I will be arguing how it effects the mind, and the ethical and philosophical problems of it.

Round 2
Published:
I extend my arguments into this round. 
Published:
I will point out many flaws with this first
1. What about transgender people?
Should they go to where their biological gender or their other one?
For example, let's say a transgender's biological gender is a girl, but is now a boy. Would the person go to a school apparently "tailored" for girls, or a school "tailored" for boys? If the person went to the girls, they would do academically well, but socially bad, because the person is a boy and shouldn't be going in a girl's school. If the person went into the boy's school then they would do academically bad, but better than the girl's school.

2. You still have no sources for the motivation, it probably got cut out but for now that isn't a relevant reason, and will not be used

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for the Cons of Single Sex Schools

1) It denies mixed gender relationships, and doesn't prepare kids for the real world
2) It increases disrespect towards the other gender
3) It can cause gender stereotyping



 4) Less social skills among other genders

Round 3
Published:
Rebuttal

“What about transgender people?”

Well, in the definition it states: “defined by a biological classification.” So, unlike the transgender ideology an objective standard will be used as opposed to a subjective ‘feeling,’ ‘belief,’ or ‘ideal.’

I take issue with objection on a moral level as well, I am not arguing for single-sex education being enforced on college students/adults. The only reason this point is even applicable is if you’re advocation transgender children/teenagers.

Since you’ve only provided one argument, I will dispute your list of “cons.”

1)      It denies mixed gender relationships, and doesn't prepare kids for the real world

On the contrary, it prepares them better for the real world - would you make this same complaint about the Boy Scouts? Coed clubs/after-school activities are a possibility, so I really don’t see any merit to this objection.

2)      It increases disrespect towards the other gender

In what world is this true? Left to their own non-misandric devices boys tend to idolize women. The reality is that confusion about normal behavior for boys and girls is largely due to misperception/ideology. In many cases, boys are labeled with ADHD or challenged due to their naturally differing psychology.

3)      It can cause gender stereotyping

No, it will cause realism. Stereotypes are more prevalent in coed schools. When boys and girls are together, they tend to exaggerate the gender differences.

In fact, as I believe I’ve pointed out, girls are more likely to pursue careers like STEM/sports in single-sex education environments. [3]

Many boys in single-sex schools receive a misdiagnosis of ADHD or other behavior-related disorder due to the perception that boys and girls behave in the same way, even though that's objectively untrue from any perspective and at any age. Male children are much more likely to recieve a diagnosis of ADHD because it's most commonly associated with hyperactivity (a common trait for young boys). [6]

Another thing to note, since I’ve been focusing on girls: Boys are horribly underperforming in school currently, but in most single-sex schools boys slightly outperform girls. Both do better in environments which account for their differing psychology, but it seems boys are getting the short end of the stick currently.

(From a pilot study done by Stetson University on FCAT scores).

boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient

girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient

girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient

boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient

(they were all learning the same curriculum).

Clarification

I am not arguing for or against gender parity in academia or career-paths, I am advocating for optimal treatment of the future generation. 

Sources

[3]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000709907X215938 - I mistakenly cut this out, along with several other things (I do all of my typing/editing in Word).





Published:
For the first argument you made
1) "On the contrary, it prepares them better for the real world - would you make this same complaint about the Boy Scouts? Coed clubs/after-school activities are a possibility, so I really don’t see any merit to this objection." 
You didn't actually provide any real argument, for this, you just asked me if I would provide the same complaint for boy scouts. So, yes, I really don't see any merit for your objection either.
2) 
'No, it will cause realism. Stereotypes are more prevalent in coed schools. When boys and girls are together, they tend to exaggerate the gender differences."
I actually object to that. One most occasions the only time boys see other girls in school is probably when they're trying to impress them, or vice versa. Therefore they will develop and unrealistic assumption on what the other gender is like
Also I don't understand how this:
"Many boys in single-sex schools receive a misdiagnosis of ADHD or other behavior-related disorder due to the perception that boys and girls behave in the same way, even though that's objectively untrue from any perspective and at any age. Male children are much more likely to receive a diagnosis of ADHD because it's most commonly associated with hyperactivity (a common trait for young boys). [6]"
Associates with your objection at all, you are just stating that single sex schools misdiagnose people, which is also a con...

Round 4
Published:
Rebuttal

N. 1,

“You didn't actually provide any real argument, for this, you just asked me if I would provide the same complaint for boy scouts. …”

I provided 2 arguments, one was very straight-forward and the other an implicative argument. The Boy Scouts are a prime example of the potential inherent in single-sex education. You can’t just dismiss an example in this manner.

If you reread the very short and comprehensible paragraph I wrote, another argument is in the first clause of the second sentence. Honestly, you created a strawman that makes a stronger case than yourself.

N. 2,

“I actually object to that. One most occasions the only time boys see other girls in school is probably when they're trying to impress them, or vice versa. Therefore they will develop and unrealistic assumption on what the other gender is like”

I’m not sure what your argument here is, to be honest. As I’ve pointed out (and cited), girls are more likely to go into STEM fields; the opposite is true with boys, they are interested more in language/humanities than in single-sex schools. It seems to me this would lessen the stereotypical misperception commonplace today.
Also, if you would like, my source/sources are always open to objection. This would be a more effective route for you at this point since you’ve failed to make any substantial arguments.

Clarification

Quote from my opponent: "Associates with your objection at all, you are just stating that single sex schools misdiagnose people, which is also a con... " 

My response: This was a very unfortunate example of a typographical error, something which it seems we're both acquainted with. 
Published:

"I’m not sure what your argument here is, to be honest."
I'm pretty sure I clarified this enough, but if you want it clearer, it is: "When one gender sees another gender on special occasions, they WILL try to impress each other, making them assume something different than what the other gender is truly like"
" As I’ve pointed out (and cited), girls are more likely to go into STEM fields; the opposite is true with boys, they are interested more in language/humanities than in single-sex schools. It seems to me this would lessen the stereotypical misperception commonplace today."
That isn't even an argument, but just a fact, none of that supports your argument at all.



Notice:
You didn't defend my argument that it doesn't prepare kids for the real world, so I'd address that if I were you, but I have evidence for you.

Real life can't afford a place where genders are separated, thus there will be a long adjustment period, one which isn't needed.

Also, there is still lack of concrete evidence that single sex schools are better than coed.
Round 5
Published:
Conclusion

My opponent has agreed with me that girls are more likely to go into non-stereotypical fields provided single-sex education, he also agreed that single-sex education reduces harmful stereotypes. Therefore, single-sex education reduces harmful stereotypes and reduces the misperception of the opposite sex. As evidenced by this direct quote, from round 4: "That isn't even an argument, but just a fact, none of that supports your argument at all."

In response to where I said: "As I’ve pointed out (and cited), girls are more likely to go into STEM fields; the opposite is true with boys, they are interested more in language/humanities than in single-sex schools.

Admittedly, I made a typo, I meant to say "IN single-sex schools." Though it hardly matters, if you change it to 'than' the point still supports the idea that single-sex schools reduce gender stereotypes. Since he agreed to it being a fact, it's change in veracity due to wording matters little. 

---

He also claimed I didn't address his 'argument' that it doesn't prepare kids for the 'real world,' when I clearly did in both round 3 and 4.

My quote, from round 3: "On the contrary, it prepares them better for the real world - would you make this same complaint about the Boy Scouts? Coed clubs/after-school activities are a possibility, so I really don’t see any merit to this objection."

Also, from round 4: "I’m not sure what your argument here is, to be honest. As I’ve pointed out (and cited), girls are more likely to go into STEM fields; the opposite is true with boys, they are interested more in language/humanities than in single-sex schools. It seems to me this would lessen the stereotypical misperception commonplace today."

----

As for his final notice, "Also, there is still lack of concrete evidence that single sex schools are better than coed." 

I have provided plenty of evidence (including, not limited to) a psychological basis of understanding the merits of single-sex education coupled with empirical evidence showing the beneficial results. 

---

My opponent has misrepresented me and my arguments. He has also agreed with points that directly contradict his claims against single-sex education. He has not provided any significant sources/scientific data to justify his claims whereas I have. He claimed he 'has evidence for me' in round 4, but suspiciously providing none throughout the entire debate (with his second of his two sources directly contradicting one of his claims). 

I remind him, now is not the time for new arguments, as I cannot directly respond to any in the debate itself. 


Published:
I never actually:
-Agreed that it doesn't cause harmful stereotypes
-Misrepresented you, I just realized you made a typo with the first title (In round 3)
-I have never agreed with your arguments
Therefore, in your conclusion, you misrepresented me because of stating false claims about the opponent's bad deeds.

"Didn't Address Arguments"
Round 3.
You put it on the wrong title, confusing the opponent. Your "coed clubs" and boy scouts claim, can only match a few people and another earlier adjustment period is needed.
Round 4.
You proved the wrong argument, you said it would lessen the stereotypical misperception, and this doesn't prove your argument against how it doesn't prepare kids for the real world.

Added:
If you ask me single sex education and both sex education is equally worse.. I studied in single sex education school for a year and didn't like it. Now I am studying in both sex education school and didn't like it either.. Too much to handle in both schools..
#40
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
What?
Instigator
#39
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
I sent you a debate request. My counter argument goes against Single Ed, but goes a step further.
#38
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Okay, then PM me your response
#37
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I can address you directly, just not in the comments. I've learned that it isn't beneficial to argue in the comments of my debate.
Instigator
#36
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Okay, if you don't want to address me, that's fine. Farewell.
#35
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
It's not you that I'm concerned about.
Instigator
#34
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist, @Tiwaz
I'm not voting, so there's no conflict here.
I'm pretty sure that the creator can't censor you Omar.
#33
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Can't speak to you because the creator of this debate said so.
#32
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
Okay.
#31
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist, @Wrick-It-Ralph
I can answer you to the best of my abilities, but I would prefer you vote before I take you on in a comment section debate. I don't want anyone viewing this debate to conflate these comments with the debate itself.
Instigator
#30
Added:
--> @Tiwaz
After looking at the data, I see some problems.
1. While it shows differences in the genders, it does not show any data that specifically shows that co education is the reason.
2. The data for single education schools does not account for the fact that most single education schools have better funding because most of them are private.
3. The differences between the genders shown in your data does nothing to suggest that separate curriculum or methodology was required between the genders. At the most, it MIGHT imply that we should use the same curriculum, but expect different results. Which would be an argument for grading them differently, which I'm not 100% opposed to depending on how it's done.
4. The data does not account for the differences of learning within one gender. Allow me to elaborate. The key point here is that both sides learn differently, therefore, we should separate them. But not every girl learns the same nor does every boy. So if we're to stick with your logic, we should separate the boys and girls into further sub categories and what we end up with is each student having their own personal teacher, because everybody ultimately learns differently to some degree. This is the key flaw in your logic. You're assuming that different learning style means we should separate them. But that doesn't follow. Once we know that people learn differently, we can let their scores reflect that. Since the curriculum is always the same for all genders, then it makes more sense to keep them in the same schools and just grade them according to their learning needs. Once those needs are understood, it would be easy for the teachers to find more inclusive ways to present their curriculum. You could say that your method does the same thing, but mine will be better because I don't have the logistical mess of synthetically segregating all the children and building a bunch of extra schools (because you know how people love to pay for that)
#29
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
1. my first statement is true, it says "tend" not "always"
2. The implications is that I'll give it a chance if it's data. Also, his argument could have been good enough by itself. The only reason I said that is because he absolutely insisted on resting his argument upon data. So that's why I said what I said.
3. It doesn't matter who gives the opinion. Even Stephen hawking had bad opinions. I don't listen to the professionals because of their opinions. I listen to them when they have hard data. There's nothing wrong with that. To listen to somebody's opinion merely because they experts is fallacious.
#28
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
>>1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.
Why didn't you say that instead of saying "I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.".
>>2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.
You said you are "willing to give you data a chance.". This implies that you have to actually try to make an effort to even consider data as a way of finding out if a point is right or wrong.
>>3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.
The problem here is that even the distinction that you made that random news articles is too general. There are papers from professional's in their specific field like political commentators, economists etc. To say an opinion of an economist is not greater than the opinion which I am assuming is a non economist implied by this "If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent." is bad. A doctor gives his professional opinion on how to best treat you. A random person on the street is trying to sell you snake oil. You have implied that there opinions are the same even though one is more credible than the other. If this is not the case you clearly have shown the lapse of judgement to opinion pieces which are written by professionals in the specific field they are talking about.
#27
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.
2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.
3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.
#26
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pros main arguments are that boys as girls think differently, and learn differently. Pro also argues it would inherently improve motivation and increase achievement.
While I accept this is possible - it is pros job to show why this is the case, he doesn’t do this in opening round - I don’t like sources being used in lieu of arguments.
Cons rebuttal argues the social development impacts of single gender schools, and the exclusion or inclusion of transgender.
Pro doesn’t really deal with the transgender issue - and mostly brushes it under the carpet.
In terms of the list of issues - the denial of mixed gender relationships is a major factor raised, pro gives me no reason to doubt it - he mostly simply denies it. Similarly pro mostly dismisses the issues concerning gender disrespect - though cons point here was not intuitive.
In terms of gender stereotyping - pro does a great job of pointing out how single sex education can encourage participation against stereotypes, he mentions issues with ADHD misdiagnoses - and argues that it improves proficiency and learning of boys as well as girls.
Cons rebuttal was largely dismissive, and doesn’t fully cover the issues raised - though I mostly agree with the objection on the first point. On the second point relating to disrespect - con goes on to reiterate his position, but it appears to be a clutching at straws assertion - this argument is non intuitive, and so con needs to provide warrant for it which he does not.
In summary here, pro provided excellent benefits of single sex education. While con provided a potential issue with social interactions for single gender schools.
Given the actual benefits raised by pro - and the fact that cons harms don’t seem to be either compared against pros benefits - or provided with an objective quantification - I can’t accept cons position.
Arguments to pros.
Sources:
Cons position is largely unsourced - with two main sources - the only one relating to a core claim seems only to lightly support it. Pros sources landed a knock out with objective data pertaining to studies, and objective quantifiable benefit - specifically the acer, Eric.ed.gov and research gate links all warranted pros main claims, with the former landing the knock out blow.
As pros sources massively solidified his warrant and cons only had limited of any real impact, sources to pro too.
All other points tied.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Kiss my goddamn ass.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Undecided and stuff to fill the word limit