Girls shouldn't be allowed to play public sports with boys
Debate Rounds (3)
I'm stating that only girls in high school or below shouldn't be allowed to play sports like basketball, football, soccer or wrestling with boys. I'm not against girls playing these sports with themselves (as in only same-sex sports) and rather advise it for their own safety.
(1) This round is for acceptance only
(2) Words will be as they are in dictionary.com
Thanks for accepting the debate con and I agree to use the Merriam-Webster Dictionary instead.
Disproportionate Upper body strength
Female anatomy in the upper body region is generally less muscular than males. It only takes a simple observation to see that the framework for the male upper body promotes stronger muscular and skeletal structure. Due to this, females tend to have considerably less upper body strength than males, exhibiting only fifty percent of men’s upper body strength and forty percent of male’s upper skeletal muscle . Another factor that contributes to these differences is men’s high levels of
testosterone, which promotes muscle growth in men by stimulating the production
of certain proteins used for muscle development.
Susceptibility to certain sport injuries
Due to the anatomical differences stated above, females tend to be more vulnerable to shoulder injuries, specifically the rotator cuff and periscapular muscles . Women also tend to have more problems with their knee as well being three to six times higher than men to suffer from ACL injuries in soccer and football. Therefore women who participate in sports (like the ones I mentioned in round 1) that are strenuous on the upper body and knees can put them at a high risk for such injuries.
Having girls play in sports like football or wrestling may create the perception that it is acceptable
to treat them in this manner. The possibility of boys maintaining this perception is real and dangerous. Moreover, males (on average) are already stronger than females, so they could potentially injury a girl when such perceptions are preserved and translated outside of the sport realm where there aren’t any rules.
I feel as though girls should be allowed to play these sports but it should only be with other girls. They are already at a physical disadvantage due to the anatomical differences that make them weaker and more susceptible to certain injuries. Restricting girls to same sex sports is fair and it will ensure their safety.
 - http://science.howstuffworks.com...
 - http://www.bidmc.org...
For many reasons, I negate the resolution. Girls should be allowed to play public sports with boys.
For clarification of this debate, I shall offer a few definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Girl - a female child from birth to adulthood
Boy - a male child from birth to adulthood
And finally, I assume that by Public Sports, my opponent means sports and training offered by the education and school environment for physical education and/or extra curricular activities
Before I reach my own arguments, I will seek faults in my opponent's argument
"I'm not against girls playing these sports with themselves (as in only same-sex sports) and rather advise it for their own safety. "
My opponent is using not only irrelevant information, but false information by saying that he or she will "advise it for their own safetey" For one thing, there is a grammar error and it should be his or her safety, or just her, because their would imply more than one, and if at least one girl were to be a transgender it would go against his claim. A girl, by the definition that i previously offered, is a female child from birth to adulthood. If one girl were to change her sex from her childhood (which happens), my opponents grammar would be incorrect and should be: his or her. For another thing, my opponent can not infer that he is protecting a girl's safety by playing a sport. Therefore, his starting statements are false.
"Another factor that contributes to these differences is men"s high levels of testosterone, which promotes muscle growth in men by stimulating the production of certain proteins used for muscle development ... Due to the anatomical differences stated above, females tend to be more vulnerable to shoulder injuries, specifically the rotator cuff and periscapular muscles"
I assume my opponent does not actually know the science behind this, because if he or she did, then my opponent would understand that contradicting this, is the female hormone estrogen. Estrogen provides a strong resistance to many levels of pain which has been a human female adaptation of giving birth. They are susceptible to many forms of pain but their nervous systems can lower it with natural painkillers. If my opponent actually knew what happened in the human body, he or she would know that his argument is of low quality.
"Having girls play in sports like football or wrestling may create the perception that it is acceptable to treat them in this manner."
This is a sexist argument, implying that men will always beat women in wrestling. My opponent, Disquisition, has not shown any evidence supporting that men will always beat women. His opinion that wrestling "may create the perception that it is acceptable to treat them [I imply means women (another grammar mistake)] in this manner" is false because it does not show any support to his argument that treating women wrongly has to do with allowing them to play in sports. Disquisition also explains that it will "create a perception" which is also false. Creating a perception of a certain thing has a whole psychology behind it, which I would not have enough time or characters to explain it. Summary wise, it is repeated acts of the same thing. This would contradict his statement again, saying that men will always win again and again, but just a few times of a woman beating a male in the sport would erase the perception that men are superior to women. Once again, my opponent has shown a faulty statement.
"Female anatomy in the upper body region is generally less muscular than males."
My opponent is showing irrelevant information which does not support his argument. He explained that public sports mean soccer and basketball, which both do not require serious amount of upper body strength. This leads to my first argument.
People should be chosen on the amount of experience and skill the player has, rather than the physical attributes such as hight, weight, and gender. In order to have a successful team, the coach must have the best lineup of players that he can choose from. If the choice is between a rookie male or an experienced female, the coach would most likely pick the female. The coaches job is to find the best player for the job, and make the best plays out of it. How can a coach do that if female children were not allowed to play in the same league?
My second contention is equality. Throughout the 20th century, humanity has made a steep change in equality throughout different race and genders. Women's rights took place in a span of a few years and decades. Though even now, women are not fully equal. The only way women can be fully equal to men is if they have the same exact rights. My having the sports be only a male sport, and not allowing women to be part of it, it would recreate the idea that men are superior, and have more opportunities in athletics than women.
I thank my opponent for posting an argument. Although it is not very effective, I appreciate that he took the time and effort to write it. I hope he will post another argument next round, but this time put relevant information.
Disquisition forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by debatinghoe123 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with pro before the debate and still after. But Con showed much better arguments and refutes, and by not forfieting he had better conduct. Throughout Con's refutes he showed Pro's grammar mistake. Pro had resources while Con didn't so he gets that point.
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.