The Instigator
ayyysylar
Pro (for)
The Contender
BetteMidler
Con (against)

Female athletes shouldn't be be able compete against men

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ayyysylar has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2017 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 102519
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

ayyysylar

Pro

Con will start arguing in Round 1 and waive Round 3.
BetteMidler

Con

I am happy to accept this debate and argue AGAINST the motion that "Women shouldn't be allowed to compete against men". My opponent has not specified whether the scope of the motion includes only professional teams, or if it also includes boys and girls playing sports together at a young age. I have made the executive decision to include young athletes in my argument.

Women and men should compete against one another on equal terms on sports arenas. The reasons for giving up sexual discrimination within sports, and for allowing individuals of both sexes to compete with each other are simple. In sports it is crucial that the best person wins. If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete, this female athlete should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete. If she cannot beat a certain male athlete, so be it. If the competition is fair, she should be able to face the fact that he is more talented. It is really as simple as that.

I believe that this debate has two key aspects that I will do my best to cover.

Firstly, can women compete against men in a athletic competitions?
Secondly, is banning women from male events a form of discrimination?

These points go hand in hand, and I will take them both on together.

I would first like to point out that the entire basis of not allowing them to play, and most likely the entire basis of my opponent's upcoming argument, is that women are not as physically gifted as men. This is clear when you consider that the controversy surrounding this issue is only stirred when a female athlete attempts to compete in a male event. Aside from issues that relate to transgender athletes, which are irrelevant to this debate, I can not research or recall the event of a male athlete attempting to play in a female competition.

All this is because of the patriarchal belief that men are better than women. This is why the motion of this very debate was written in a way that denigrates women, not even assuming that a male athlete would EVER want to play for the girls team. It is why the ONLY reason that women leagues exist in the first place, created either by a man to silence their complaint, or by a woman to give them their opportunity.

Aside from the blatant sexism that makes up the argument, I disagree with the premise as it relates to many sporting events. A great many sports require skill at the game in order to be a high-achiever, with physical prowess being merely gravy, so to speak. For every sport, there is a woman with skill and a woman without, a man with skill and a man without. If male athletes were able to set aside their sexism, they may realize that just as there is somewhere a man who is faster than them, stronger than them, taller than them, or more skilled than them, there is also somewhere a woman.

Essentially, men are not easily able to say they are better than all men, but through their ego they are easily able to say that they are better than all women. I admit that this argument is easier when arguing that Michael Jordan would defeat Sheryl Swoopes in a game of street ball, but Michael Jordan is not the average man.

Just as there are men who excel at sports and men who do not, the same is true for women. Yet, men who do NOT excel are allowed to play with men who DO, and women who DO excel are not. In schools across the world, there are women who can defeat many if not most or all of their male classmates . Why not allow these women to play in a league where they will be given the greater challenge? If they are not the best, then they are not the best, just as male who is not athletic will not be the best. If the team is a competitive roster, then tryouts that are open to all genders will certainly sort out who is better than who.

And if that isn't enough, then I have to ask: What are men so afraid of?
Debate Round No. 1
ayyysylar

Pro

My opponent starts off her debate with a flawed premise. The debate is not about "boys and girls playing sports together at a young age," it's about female athletes and whether they should compete against men at a professional level. Now with that out of the way, I'll start my rebuttal.

I. Unfair Advantages of the Male Sex

"In sports it is crucial that the best person wins. If a female athlete can perform better than a male athlete, this female athlete should be allowed to compete with, and beat, the male athlete. If she cannot beat a certain male athlete, so be it. If the competition is fair, she should be able to face the fact that he is more talented. It is really as simple as that."

I completely agree. If the competition is fair, the athletes compete to find out who the winner is. But if the other competitor is incredibly more advantaged than the other, that is most certainly not "fair." And that's our exact dilemma; my opponent is trying to surmise that males' and females' physiological strength are the same, and that is most certainly not the case. And assuming that one of the opponents is incredibly more advantaged, especially at a physiological strength level, according to my opponent it wouldn't be fair, thus not being allowed.


Men, on average, are stronger than women. This statement has nothing to do with culture, society or the patriarchy. Almost all men are stronger than almost all women. In an NHANES study, the 89% of adult men were stronger than the 89% of adult women. [1] That alone is an incredible advantage. But, it doesn't end there. Biological males have more testosterone, which fuels their competitiveness. [2] Men have naturally higher levels of anabolic steroids, which helps them recover stamina quicker. [3] Men have higher hemoglobin counts in their blood, which helps circulate oxygen better around the body. [4] Men have greater muscle mass and have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments. [5]

If this is about fairness, as your whole argument is based upon, then men should not be able to compete against women. It would not be fair for a group that is incredibly (and naturally, might I add) more advantaged at the endeavor they are competing over to play with a group that is incredibly (and naturally) disadvantaged.

II. Instances of Unfair Advantages at Play

"I admit that this argument is easier when arguing that Michael Jordan would defeat Sheryl Swoopes in a game of street ball, but Michael Jordan is not the average man."

Australia women's national Olympic soccer team lost against a team of boys under the age of 15. [6] And if that wasn't revealing enough, they lost 7-0. And this isn't a freak occurrence since this exact same thing happened a few years when America's women's national Olympic soccer team went against a team of boys under 15 and lost horribly. [7] But, all this should be no surprise since men have many, many physical advantages as I proved above. So many advantages, in fact, that a team of boys 15 years of age and under can lose to a women's national Olympic soccer team on several occasions.

III. My opponent's false and malicious statements

My opponent made numerous ad hominem fallacies:

"this very debate was written in a way that denigrates women"

"aside from the blatant sexism that makes up the argument"

"It is why the ONLY reason that women leagues exist in the first place, created either by a man to silence their complaint, or by a woman to give them their opportunity. "

"men are not easily able to say they are better than all men, but through their ego they are easily able to say that they are better than all women"

These statements are irrelevant to the overall argument, demonstrably false, attacks my character, and applies a false motive. I ask the voters to take this into account.

1.) https://www.cdc.gov...;
2.) https://www.sciencedaily.com...
3.) http://www.sportsci.org...;
4.) https://www.theatlantic.com...;
5.) https://www.psychologytoday.com...;
6.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;
7.) http://www.bigsoccer.com...;
BetteMidler

Con

My opponent begins by challenging the premise of my argument, having failed to specify the debate he began. He (I assume he, based on the motion) specifies it in a way that makes his own argument easier- though not correct-, and incorrectly assumes that the word "athlete" implies professionalism. I concede to him his wish to alter the terms of the debate. My points in this round will apply to athletes both young and old, so a distinction will not be necessary.

Let me be clear. We are not debating the motion, "The average man is physically stronger than the average women." We are not debating the motion, "A team of men would defeat a team of women." We are debating the motion, set forth by my opponent, "Female athletes shouldn't be be able to compete against men." ABLE. I have not, as stated by my opponent for some reason, surmised that male and female strength is the same. I have merely stated that the option should be open for a female to play on a "men's" team based on MERIT.

Yet my opponent seems to be arguing a different motion than this debate's, despite being the one who created it in the first place. Two of his points are irrelevant, the third is indignation at best and at worst, for lack of a better word, whiny.

He has brought up the physical prowess of men vs. the seeming lack of such in women. I apologize, but this was his main argument, and it has nothing to do with the motion. This motion is "Female athletes shouldn't be able to compete against men." ABLE. If it is true that all men are better than all women, as he clearly seems to think, then opening tryouts to women shouldn't change a thing. I am happy to accept that in a fair environment, the best athletes will be chosen regardless of sex and gender. If those athletes are all male, so be it.

He has given an example of an all female team being defeated by an all male team. Again I apologize, this also has nothing to do with the argument at hand. This is merely an extension of the of the physical argument. I was under the impression that he wanted to debate women being allowed to compete against men, not some boys vs. girls competition at summer camp.

He has stated that women competing against men is not "fair". Life isn't fair. Danny DeVito guarding Kareem Abdul-Jabbar isn't fair, and they both have penises. I can only repeat the motion of this debate so many time. "Female athletes shouldn't be able to compete against men." ABLE. This isn't about affirmative action in the NFL. This is about allowing all athletes to attempt to compete at the highest level and being chosen, again, based on MERIT.

Lastly, and I'm sad that I have to go over this, but pointing out the sexism of a sexist argument is not an ad hominem attack. It's a fact relevent to the debate. I understand that being told you're a sexist is unpleasant, but no one identifies as such. They merely are, based on opinions they believe are innocent.

To be honest, I don't care what my opponent's motive is. I only care about his premise, and his premise is sexist. He has decided that because men have more hemoglobin in their blood that women should not be allowed to compete against them. He has decided that testosterone is a good enough reason to allow NO women to even attempt to play in a "men's" league. This is sexism at it's finest, pure and simple.


Maybe the average woman wouldn't make it on a "men's" team, but it there is one woman not playing professionally who is better than one man who is, then this premise is sexist.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ayyysylar 8 months ago
ayyysylar
Again with twisting my position. My, my.
Posted by BetteMidler 8 months ago
BetteMidler
So again, if you don't believe you can win the debate then forfeit the round. I would obviously prefer you try your best instead of giving up.
Posted by ayyysylar 8 months ago
ayyysylar
You refuse to debate my actual argument. You made up what you thought my argument was in your head. And when that didn't work, you shifted your entire argument. Conniving and insulting.
Posted by BetteMidler 8 months ago
BetteMidler
If you think my argument is flawed, feel free to say why in your rebuttal. If you believe you are not able to win the debate then forfeit the round. I won't have a conversation in these comments, but I do want to give you the opportunity to finish the debate.
Posted by ayyysylar 8 months ago
ayyysylar
My opponent's first round is about the concept of "fairness," after I disproved that argument, she shifts positions saying "life is not fair." I will not attempt to rebut someone that misconstrues what the debate is about and shifts positions, not letting me properly rebut.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.