Girls and Boys Should Attend Different Schools
Debate Round Forfeited
SJM has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||520 times||Debate No:||93329|
Debate Rounds (4)
Ladies and gentlemen,
Round 1 acceptance
Round 2 arguments (max.3) and rebuttals (for con) (unlimited)
Round 3 arguments (max.3) and rebuttals (unlimited)
Round 4 summary (no new arguments) and rebuttals
Have fun debating,
Girls and Boys Should Attend Different Schools
Ladies and gentlemen,
I define this topic as schools to be mainly high schools, because this is the situation now. This topic is not about the past, but the present. When I say schools, I mean we are not differentiating between public and private because it does not state so in the topic. Lastly, when I say schools we are leaving out selective schools because it is guaranteed that those schools are already the best, because they are made up of especially chosen students.
Girls and boys should attend different schools because single sex schools excel. We argue that attending single sex schools are necessary for our academic and physical well being. Single sex schools are vital to our lifestyle. Co-ed schools give a standard education whilst single sex schools bring out the best in each student. In other words, they excel.
In this round I will be arguing the academic side of the topic and in my second round I will be arguing for the physical side of why boys and girls should attend different schools.
And now, to begin my case - Girls and boys have different learning styles. A single sex school can cater for their gender's suited learning styles. For example, girls often work better in groups and through listening/acoustics whereas boys tend to learn better independently and would rather just do an activity on the subject. To extent - boys would work better on a project than a listening to a lecture, and girls, well, they will learn better the other way round - they would learn better through a lecture than working on a project. In a co-educational school, staffs have to cater for both styles of learning. If a class does a project, the girls won't learn as much. If a class is given a lecture, the boys won't learn as much. Even if a class does a project one week and a lecture the next, the students are still not learning to their max. Only single sex schools can help achieve this goal. Single sex schools excel.
Secondly, girls and boys are born naturally better at certain subjects. For example, girls are born better at English whilst boys are born better at Mathematics. If a girls school were to add a few extra minutes to a mathematics lesson per week they could end up as equal as boys. The same goes for boys, if a boys school were to add a few extra minutes onto an English lesson once a week they’d become equal with the girls in English. Of courser, students are still required to study at home, in their own time, to be the best they can be, but a few extra minutes for one lesson a week will give an equal ground for both genders to start off. In a co educational school, they could attempt this approach but will not succeed. The school would have to add a few minutes in both English and Mathematical lessons and will just be teaching boys and girls the same amount in each subject. This method can only be used in single sex schools, and must be used for fairness in education between girls and boys.
Lastly, girls and boys are a distraction to each other during class. Boys are always trying to impress girls with dumb jokes and girls always trying to impress the boys. This causes major distractions in the classroom. For example, during geography, some girls are passing notes when a popular boy sees them. The girls act like nothing happened because they are trying to impress the boy. This is an interruption to important and valuable time, dedicated to learning. The actual scenario may have only been a few seconds but the people in their surroundings will of noticed and will continue to turn their head to check on the girls, to see what they are up to. This is just one example, of one class, of one year! Each time the distraction becomes more frustrating. This problem can’t occur in a single sex school because the other gender is not there to cause distractions. Another scenario that might happen in the classroom is that a few boys make a joke but some of the girls roll their eyes. Because boys want to impress the girls, they try to do something cool. What they do not realise is that this is also distracting, and like the first scenario, other people surrounding will notice and continue to look at them for the rest of class. Their attention will only be focused their surroundings, not the task at hand. Single sex schools excel.
Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys should attend different schools simply because they excel. They can use a certain learning style(s). The schools can afford to add a few extra minutes a week to a certain class. Single sex schools provide a better education, bring the best out of students and thrive. They are a place free from the other gender’s distractions in classes. The quality education provided by a single sex school is impossible to acquire in a co educational school. Girls and boys can live in the same world, but they need to be separated whilst learning. Single sex schools are essential to a child’s life, if they want a great education, not a standard co education, but a quality, advanced education.
Happy debating and good luck,
May the best debater win!!!
Resources; (max. 10)
My opponent starts off by restricting the resolution without having stated it in the first round so I could have seen it before accepting. Therefore this leads to an unfair debate unless we include every type school since the resolution doesn"t specify. It doesn"t make sense to specify the resolution when the resolution was made general. I however do agree to make it about the present. Also there is no reason to limit it just to high schools for the reason you stated which was just "this is the situation now". And we also can not leave out selective schools just because they are made up of chosen children, because sex still plays a part. If someone only selected men to attend their school and they happen to be worse than a same sex selective school, then there could be a link with sex and selective schools aren"t considered the best.
My opponent"s first argument is that boys and girls have different learning styles which is not backed up with a cut piece of evidence but instead is backed up with a website sources which is also unfair because someone could basically paste and website and make the opponent read all through it. This is comparable to me saying something about same sex schools, and then posting websites with ridiculous length in order to make my opponent try to find it. So in the next round my opponent shall have to provide a cut evidence. Now, but let"s say this is true, in real life there will be situations in which people have to adapt. Isn"t that the purpose of school? School is designed to make you adapt to adult life in the real world and help you make a living. But if we start doing what my opponent proposes which is to cater to every weakness someone has, we aren"t helping them adapt to different situations which is neglecting the purpose of school. When someone is having a hard time in learning a subject, we don"t just give them an A, the teachers try to help them adapt to the subject. Therefore in double sex schools people will learn to work on their weaknesses and work on flexibility.
Next my opponent provides a proposal which states that if we put people in single sex schools, we can add a few extra minutes to each one"s subject and therefore equal the ground of knowledge with the other sex. But the problem with this, is that it"s singling out a subject that not necessarily everyone of the sex are worse than boys are at. Plus the study is also assuming that the same effort is being put in from both sides, but if they aren"t and some minutes get added, it most likely that they still wouldn"t put effort in. And what about the girls that are better than boys at math? They are going to be wasting their time. It"s evident that the study is impossible to make this conclusion considering they can"t read minds and therefore not tell how much effort was put in. Plus school is suppose to even the subjects out because it would be unfair to pick out a subject and say that subject should hold priority over the others, because obviously the students have different subject priorities, and schools are suppose to prepare them for the college study they want to get into. It"s illogical to add minutes to a class because a bad study shows that girls tend to more in a subject. Also just because girls are better than boys at a subject doesn"t mean that boys are necessarily lacking skill, but that girls are just better. There"s no reason why it would need to be equal, therefore why not increase minutes in all subjects?
My last rebuttal is to the point that single sex schools have less distractions due to the other sex not being there. This would be right under these circumstances, there were not any gay people, only different sexes can be friends, people only like to impress with dumb things, and that people only like to impress the opposite sex. My opponent tries to exclude gay people out of the equation, when there are gays in single sex schools which to the same things pro provides above. Also people who are friends do dumb things like this all the time because they want to impress them, and even people who aren"t their friends. What my opponent is essentially saying is that there can only be distractions if two different sexes are in the class. In fact people may be more inclined to do dumb things in single sex schools since they would do dumber things to make their friends laugh rather than try to act smart which is what most people like nowadays. Therefore in double sex schools, people will try to less to embarrass themselves than as if they were just hanging out with their friends because they are trying to make the other sex like them.
There are undoubtedly certain attributes to one sex that"s more prominently seen than in the other, and to add more attributes to the everyday life will make the both sexes knowledgeable. For example women tend to be more nurturing towards children, men could learn things from them and women can learn things from men. Plus if we are trying to live, we need to have kids, therefore it would better if people were used to women, thus better at talking to them.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I do not find this debate 'unfair' as the opposition stated. Con agreed to this debate but seems to not want to actually debate. I find the purpose of a debate such as this one itself, is to persuade readers to agree with either pro or con. Con has a strong will to just argue on a debate topic itself!
May I also say, Con could of asked questions in the comment section before accepting.
Con continued to rebut the topic, saying 'The debate topic should include all schools - primary and preschool, but I do agree that the debate should be about now'. these two statements obviously contradict each other. If Con agrees that the debate should be about now, then it is obvious that only high schools should be included. It is very rare to find a primary or preschool that is single sex now!
Con stated that my first argument was not supported by any evidence, yet my sources stated that scientific research and experiments have proved so. Con also complained that pasting resources is not fair. But may I remind you that even when voting it states 'resources' meaning, who used the most reliable resources. DDO ( Debate.org ) is encouraging resources, but most debates have a limit to the number of resources, which in this case is 10.
I consider this debate to be quite fair, and if there are to be anymore questions, that they are stated in the comment section, and that the rounds are for the actual debating.
Con also stated that we need to adapt in life. When I said that teachers could use methods that suit the gender, I was not saying every second of school. Students can still learn other methods, but they can focus on their suited style of learning.
Con seemed to of missed my second point because I stated that it just gives everyone the same size stepping stone to start from. Of course how good a student gets is up to how much they study and pay attention in class. Con continued on, saying that not all students need to be equal but this is untrue because the time frame we live in now offers job positions for both female and male persons. For example, an accounting job may be available to either a female or a male. Both genders apply for the job and the male takes the position. This is highly unfair because the female worker never had her chance to learn that extra mathematics. With this learning she would of had a much higher chance of being accepted into the role. A few extra minutes of learning goes a long way.
Con's last rebuttal was against my argument of 'no distractions' but again Con has been mistaken, I never said that there would be no distractions to ever happen again in a single sex school, I stated there would be a dramatic decrease.
My last rebuttal goes against Con's only argument. Con stated that men would act strange around woman in later life but this is misleading. School is only five days of a week, students would still have plenty of time to socialize around the other gender on weekends. Both sexes would still be knowledgeable of the other genders attributes through school, and again, on the weekend.
And now to continue my case,
My first point is that boys and girls that go to single-sex schools are more comfortable in their own skin. Not worrying about impressing the other gender. They feel they can let loose, not worrying about the opposite sex judging them, and knowing that they are all equal. Girls and boys don’t have to worry about their “Biological or physical” changes being less embarrassing because it’s happening to everyone else. Single-sex schools excel! Students are not worrying that the opposite gender will think weirdly of them. Girls will face the same issues as everyone else around them in a single sex school, and the same with boys. But if students are in a co educational school, research shows that gossip about these "Biological and Physical" changes is ten times more likely to spread. School need to be a place that we are comfortable in.
My second point is about the maturity between boys and girls. Studies show that boys and girls seem to mature at different rates. Girl’s brains can begin maturing from the age of 10, while some men have to wait until 20 before the same organisational structures take place. Before you say that boys and girls should be to together because of maturity, so it can rub off on to the boys, how would that be fair to the girls? As studies show girls working with boys does not improve their education, but boys working with girls improves their education. Does it seem fair that this is ruining girl’s education? Single-sex schools excel! Maturity may of rubbed off onto the boys, but does this really help? Boys were born that way. Mother nature mad it that way, so it should stay that way!
My last point refers to the sporting opportunities that can be granted through a single sex school. Sporting opportunities are much greater in a single sex school because they only have to cater for that gender. In a co educational school, the school have to provide for both boys and girls soccer teams. In a single sex school they can have the same amount of teams for soccer but all can be either girls or boys. More teams means more chances. In a co educational school there is often a dance studio, for both boys and girls. A study showed that most boys would do dance only if girls were not around. Boys are scared to join a dance troupe when girls are around because they think the girls will laugh at them. Only few boys have the courage to continue to dance even in front of girls. In a boys school, boys can dance without the worry of girls watching them. Another example is cricket, this is practically the same scenario as the dance only the girls have switched roles with the boys. They become the more vulnerable.
As well as learning, school is a place to make friends. A place that you should feel comfortable in. You may feel comfort in a co educational school, but the truth is that becoming a student at a single sex school means you are the most comfortable you ever will be. Just because the other gender isn't around during school does not mean they become like aliens to you in the future! There is such time called 'the weekend' when you can socialize. Socializing is a bonus in school, you are really there to learn and feel comfortable! Single sex schools excel. Students should attend single sex schools simply because of the way you feel comfortable.
This concludes my round 3 argument. Good Luck Con! ;P
Then my opponent claims that I could have asked in the comments section, but it"s not my fault that my opponent failed to restrict the resolution beforehand. This point also doesn"t work because then basically anyone could put any restrictions they want as long as the opponent didn"t ask about it in the comment section. Therefore my point stands.
My opponent then says I contradicted myself by saying that I want to talk about preschools, but yet talk about the present. This is in no way a contradiction. My opponent conceded that there are single sex preschools, therefore in the now, they are taken into consideration. How are single sex preschools in the now, not part of the now?
My opponent again doesn"t understand that yes you are suppose to use sources, but in order for the opponent to refute them, the person who has the sources have to cut the quotes into their argument. The reason why is because it"s not fair to make someone read a bunch of stuff without know what the opponent is specifically talking about. Therefore yes you are suppose to use evidence but you also need to quote them. It would not be fair if I posted ten sources with a hundred pages in each of them and told you to look for my evidence.
Therefore it"s not fair that my opponent input these restrictions after the debate began, and does not quote their evidence.
My opponent asserts that they didn"t mean every second of school, but that"s not what I mean either. With any amount of time if we are constantly catering to individuals to their weaknesses instead of helping them develop their weaknesses, then the teachers are making them even weaker. This would lead to them not being flexible with other challenges which is how someone is to improve himself. And they should have a style for all situations in order to best adapt, if they have a style for one situation, how would that be any good?
I would then like to point out that my opponent selects a few arguments and doesn"t even argue all of my arguments. For example pro didn"t refute this "Plus the study is also assuming that the same effort is being put in from both sides, but if they aren"t and some minutes get added, it most likely that they still wouldn"t put effort in" and "And what about the girls that are better than boys at math? They are going to be wasting their time. It"s evident that the study is impossible to make this conclusion considering they can"t read minds and therefore not tell how much effort was put in." and "Plus school is suppose to even the subjects out because it would be unfair to pick out a subject and say that subject should hold priority over the others, because obviously the students have different subject priorities, and schools are suppose to prepare them for the college study they want to get into". This solely shows how my opponent did not actually refute my argument. My opponent goes on to say that the female worker never had the chance to learn extra minutes of mathematics, but neither did the boys. One sex has to be inevitably better than the other at a subject realistically. This is not necessarily the fault of intrinsic properties, but of effort or some other choice, or maybe girls are just less interested. Also they could study at home, or in college. This is a really bad excuse.
EVERYONE WATCHING THIS, LOOK AT THE ARGUMENTS. My opponent is attempting to deceive people into thinking they actually said that they didn't mean all distractions, but I will provide people with the exact quote. "This problem can"t occur in a single sex school because the other gender is not there to cause distractions." Pro also says they stated dramatic decrease, but no where in the argument is it said. Therefore my opponent has lied to the watchers.
Then my opponent says that students have a lot of time to socialize with the other gender, but It"s certain that it would be easier if it were in school. There would be more excuses for talking to the opposite sex, for example help with homework. And in real life someone has to actively go out and seek the opposite sex which would be harder to achieve than as if it were at school. Sometimes you may even be forced to talk to the opposite sex for an assigned partners group. Plus since they"re students they may be too busy being studious. Therefore my opponent has refuted zero arguments.
Now since I literally have 4 minutes I will refute my opponent"s arguments with shorts lines since they aren"t any good.
First, people aren"t necessarily comfortable just because the other gender. There are gay people, and those who don"t want to be judged by friends and strangers.
Second, a study can"t prove that sex doesn"t improve education, but that doesn"t mean it harms it. Therefore it doesn"t matter. Also education isn"t everything, what about happiness? Nowhere does it say it ruins it, only that it doesn"t improve.
Third, if they are scared of girls then they have to adapt. They have to overcome their fear which is how someone becomes mature.
Fourth, I already refuted the last paragraph. Stop saying single sex schools excel, it doesn"t sound good, it just sounds annoying.
'A strong reason for co-education is that separating children for a number of years means they will not be mixing and learning about each other.' - Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge and Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge.
"In academic terms it should be noted that both boys and girls at the Cathedral School attain the same distinction in terms of examination results: the percentage of A*/A grades at GCSE here is equally high for both genders, indicating that neither gender is disadvantaged by the other, in fact the reverse is true, both are enhanced by the presence of the other."
Ladies and gentlemen,
If Con is such a great debater, he/she should be able to win a debate anyhow. Con is welcome to argue on a definition of the topic, but must support reasonable arguments. Suggestions are welcome, but can we please not debate just on the topic itself.
I believe single sex schools are not part of NOW because single sex schools are a rarity, I'm not sure if they even exist!
Quoting is not a necessity of arguments and I believe Con is mistaken when he/she says that if debaters just paste links of resources at the bottom of the page, it is utterly pointless! But it is obviously not, if people paste resources they are showing where their evidence is from. Voters do not have to inspect a whole website, but merely a portion which obviously heads the topic a debater is referring too.
Con stated that he didn't mean every second of school either but I am slightly confused. In future could Con please explain what he/she is rebutting against, at least the point r paragraph number. My best guess is to say that he/she was talking about learning styles! Con continued to baffle on saying that teachers would make them weaker, but Con has provided no proof to this, let alone make any sense at all. Con still continued on a point that they have already made, I have also rebutted this point already saying that students would still learn other styles but try to focus on the style that particularly suits them.
Con states I didn't rebut all his/her points but is that seriously important in debating! If you don't rebut every point are you disqualified? Some points are simply not worth rebutting, can't be rebutted, or don't even know what the actual point is. In this case I was confused to the ground when Con stated his argument/s. Have you ever heard of the saying 'Quality is worth more than Quantity.'
When I stated that female workers didn't have the chance to learn that extra mathematics Con still did not understand!!!! Con instead rebutted saying that males would not get that either but male students do not need it because they were born better at mathematics than girls, naturally. That extra teaching is just a stepping stone!.
Con has actually helped me in his next rebuttal towards me. I stated this can't happen because the other gender is not there to cause distractions. I said the opposite gender won't cause distractions, which is perfectly true because the other gender is not there in a single sex school. When I said this could not happen I was referring to that exact situation!
Single sex schools will still socialize with the opposite gender in school. Schools will often do studies with another single sex school , of the opposite gender, in the area. For example, North Sydney Girls High does studies with the closest school, North Sydney Boys High. A school such as Knox Grammar works with Pymble's Ladies College or Abbotsley works with Barker College. Students also are free to go out of school during lunch, so that is a perfect time to socialize, there will be school camps where you socialize.
Con please do not state your time issues with voters' or the audience. Your time issues are yours, and are not excuses. Remember 'Quality always wins over Quantity.' For your information, you have not proved any reason yet to why my points are no good, or rubbish. Any debater can state that, but a good debater backs up their evidence with true, clear, actual, reliable proof!
Con's next refute was impossible to understand. I am not sure what Con means by his argument of gay marriage. I can only assume he attempts to say being Gay is not comfortable and therefore we are not comfortable in our gender, generally. If this is true, what Con states, Gay marriage is pure love and if someone is gay they should not be worried of other people thinking of them. To be honest, Gay marriage is a totally different subject matter, which in my opinion would require another debate such as 'Is Gay Marriage Pure Love.' If Con believes these people would be judged it's not saying that the opposite gender won't judge them, therefore not making Co -educational schools any better.
Con's next rebuttal/argument left me baffled and extremely confused, and in this scenario I don't have the slightest hint what Con intends to prove! Con simply stated these exact words - Second, a study can"t prove that sex doesn't improve education, but that doesn't mean it harms it. Therefore it doesn't matter. - When did 'sex' become a part of any of this? Con if you would care to explain for your own sake in your last round or in the comment section!
Single Sex schools still provide happiness, the happiness of comfort, facing only the same gender, the comfort of not being embarrassed by the other gender. Happiness that you get a fair stepping stone to step off in education!
Con's third rebuttal/argument ( I can't decide what it is! ) was that boys need to just overcome their fear to mature ( at least I think that is what Con attempt to state ). But since when was maturity all about fear. Maturity is developed though brain cells forming in your brain, it is natural. It can not start through erasing fear! There are plenty of mature adults who have fears of heights, or spiders, tight spaces even paper! This does not mean they are not mature!
Next, Con has no right to stop me from writing anything which may help me win this debate, writing you have four minutes left is not helping you win. I was a member of the debating team during primary school and am now, in high school. Those words are called a case line. Ever heard of it, probably not. It sums all your points in a few words. Your paragraphs just expand and explain your points. Take this paragraph as a tip. Con has also repeated many of his points at least the repeating of mine was called a 'big bang' or a summary in a debating structure. Take that as an extra free tip. Do not forget to thank me when you do exactly that and win!
And I am not going to bother with Con's last argument. Question for Con though, where are your actual arguments?
And now to conclude my case,
Girls and boys have different learning styles such as acoustics and group work. Single sex schools can adjust curriculum's to cater for either girls or boys needs. A single sex school has to look at both sides and at both genders so both girls and boys have to use all styles regularly.
Girls and boys start into the world naturally better than the opposite gender at something. The stepping stone a boys steps off for mathematics is greater than a girls. This is unfair for girls because their chance of acquiring an accounting job is less. The chance of a boy acquiring a teacher because their English stepping stone is smaller than a girl's.
My final point in my educational side of the argument was that girls and boys are a distraction to each other. When students get to high school, they come to that age where trying to impress the other gender kicks in. The distraction of the other gender prevents efficient learning.
The first point I made for my physical reasons I stated that girls and boys can be comfortable as who they are. The "Physical and Biological" changes in our bodies are no longer an issue in a single sex school. Because anything that's happening to you is happening to everyone else. Students don't worry about the opposite gender talking about you behind your back because there is no opposite gender to do so.
Furthermore, I continued on saying that the age that maturity starts is much earlier than boys and will effect how students think if they are in a co educational classroom. Teachers in a single sex school only have to be able to teach either students who are already matured, girls, or students who are still maturing or have not started maturing, boys. Compare this scenario to a co educational school and you see that teachers must learn to be able to cope with both matured, maturing and not yet matured students. This causes stress on a teacher and again prevents beneficial learning.
Lastly, the sporting opportunities in a single sex school are much greater as staff there only have to provide for on genders' sports. A girls school will have more soccer teams because a co educational school has to provide both girls and boys. The same goes for hockey and cricket.
Ladies and gentlemen, a co educational school may give you a standard education but a single sex school gives an advanced education. A place free of distractions from the opposite gender. Single sex schools are great for their educational and physical benefits. If you want the best from a student, send them to a single sex school, and we want all our students to thrive so that is why all students should attend a single sex school.
Vote for Pro for her rebuttals, points, resources and structure. Don't forget Pro knows what she's saying!
This concludes my part of this debate. Vote Pro!
Good Luck Con,
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.