The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
swagwhale
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Mixed-sex dormitories should be the only dormitory type permitted at higher education institutes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,938 times Debate No: 59070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

I will be defending the resolution that mixed-sex dormitories should be the only dormitory type permitted at higher education institutes.

Higher Education: education or learning at a college or university.(1) If I may also add that this means above the age of 18, as I don't want to debate silly semantics about age.

First round is for acceptance only.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Important: BOP is shared. This is something I say for all debates I instigate (as of 6/27/2014). It makes voters vote on what is presented and not look for a semantic reason to vote against or for someone.

Ideally, the BOP is on Pro, but its not possible to prove anything beyond doubt. So in effect if we are to apply BOP to any debate then Pro automatically wins. By sharing BOP, I make the debate arguments open to a more rational non semantic vote. And I avoid the terrible "Lest I remind you BOP lies on Pro in this debate, and they have not met their BOP".
swagwhale

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate and I hope we can have a fun and educational debate.

Before I lay out my main arguments for why I believe dormitories in higher education should be mixed sex. Let me elaborate on mixed sex dormitories, as some interesting questions have arisen in the comments. I am for mixed dormitories on the same floors, or separate floors, or even with men and women sharing the same room. As such my opponent can be against either of these systems as I am for it.

However, when men and women are sharing the same room obviously this is a choice. This is not a proposition that we are going to be a Nazi style system where people are forced to do things they do not want i.e. share the same room with someone of the opposite sex. To elaborate further, if my best friend (female) and I want to share a room we should be allowed to.

Now with that behind me, let me get to my arguments.

Argument 1 is for equality.

The simple fact is that if my opponent wants to win this debate they have to show that all types of dormitories besides mixed sex should be banned at higher education institutes (HEI). The reasoning behind this is simple at any HEI that only has single sex dormitories leads to homosexuals been able to live together. Clearly not all homosexual couples will want to live in the same dormitory, or room but there may be some that will. In the same manner straight couples should be afforded the same rights.

My opponent may argue this is an absurd point, however if you consider that about 20 % of the population is attracted to the same sex this is not a bizarre claim.(1) In fact even if we use the often cited only 10 %, that still is 1 in ten, this premise holds. On a side note, remember that number next time you are with a group of friends.

Even if my opponent may argue that everyone should be in single rooms in separate male and female dormitories. This is just as absurd, as we are well aware that college kids don't obey rules and so the same sex couple will still be getting it on in relative ease compared to the straight couples who are separated by not one wall but one entire building and the space in between.

Argument 2 is for society.

Males and females have to be able to function together in the modern world, as such what a better way to let people to get along than by putting them in a situation where they are required to mingle. This will benefit society in the long term, in the same way that co-education benefits school children (school in the sense means pre HEI).(2)

Additionally, what a great way to meet potential mates of the opposite or same sex. Additionally, it increases your chances of making those life long connections that people make at colleges as the number of people you are in contact with is increased by 100 % if we consider a 1:1 ratio of women and men in the world. These connections are often not only for personal reasons but also business. So in effect we are increasing the chance of successful business partnerships that could happen and this is clearly beneficial for society.

Argument 3 is for eradication of sexism.

This argument fits in well with Argument 2, but I thought I would separate it as sexism is such a highly contentious issue in society nowadays. If you have men and women living in the same quarters this will surely eradicate sexism. An analogy to this is the dismantling of mixed race schools had a large effect towards eradicating racism and improving self respect of the parties involved.(3) When people are made to spend more time with others they will naturally get to see that these people are the same as them and as such learn to respect them.

This may seem a silly point. However, imagine this type of process been made to happen in a country like Saudi Arabia where women are considered half a man. It will surely force men to be respectful of women. Additionally, in a country like Britain (or the USA) where sexism is such a minor problem it will surely help kill if off completely.

In closing, I would like to say that even though students spend time in class together and hanging out having a beer, the issues of equality still exist in society. An easy way to get rid of this is to force people into a situation that will in the end benefit themselves and society.

I now hand the debate over to my opponent.

(1) http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
(2) http://www.sciencemag.org...
(3) http://www.apa.org...

swagwhale

Con

Bennet91 makes a good point to start off my argument.

" Given that a portion of parents pay for their child's college education, and given that there are some parents that have "traditional" views against co-habitation (even if they are not in the same room). Some parents would not feel comfortable paying for their child's education if they believe their child is being put in a morally compromising situation. In short; some parents might not want to pay for a college education that seemingly promotes fornication. Pro even acknowledges that co-ed dorms give people the opportunity to find a mate, or more realistically a "friend with benefits" situation. "

In response to your pro's argument:
"20 % of the population is attracted to the same sex" doesn't mean they are entirely gay. As pro's first reference says "plenty of people still feel pressured to hide their sexual orientation" it seems less likely that anything would happen between to same sex adults who had gay thoughts. While "survey givers are getting better at tricking us into being honest" doesn't it seem likely that some people don't actually want to be gay, and therefore wouldn't do anything gay? The same website also says "The veiled method also increased the rates of anti-gay sentiment. Respondents were 67% more likely to express disapproval of an openly gay manager at work (p<0.01) and 71% more likely to say it is okay to discriminate against lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (p<0.01)." Wouldn't gay people be less likely to be comfortable to "be getting it on" with a room full of straight people? Lastly pro says "straight couples should be afforded the same rights". The whole point of my side in this debate is that those "rights" aren't a good thing. Colleges should try to avoid them as much as possible, to a reasonable extent. At least gays being together won't cause college pregnancies.

In response to pro's second argument:
People can mingle and "meet potential mates" at a more respectable time, it does not have to be while people are in their dormitories. For example people have conversations in changing rooms,but pro does not argue that only changing rooms that allow both genders should remain. Classes and campus however can have anybody occupying them.

In response to pro's third argument:
As pro has said, this is less of an issue in most European countries. This would mean the most in a country such as Saudi Arabia. In my opinion however, this would be the worst place to have mixed sex dormitories. The women would risk physical and sexual abuse, in the confines of a building that is filled with men who are used to a culture where it is acceptable. It worked with racism because essentially race is just skin colour. Gender however is a lot more. While women deserve just as many rights as men, the average man is stronger than the average women, so they are less likely to be able to defend themselves. I stress the point that this is not true for all men and women, merely enough that leaving a sexist group to sort it out together would probably not be the best policy. If not convinced remember that sexist men do get married. They live with a woman whom they probably love, and still consider themselves superior.
Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks to my opponent for their response.



Regarding Bennet91's statement I am not sure whether to reply to it or not. It is attributed, but it also comes from the comments section of the debate. However, so as not to lose argument points for a failed rebuttal I really have no choice.



This argument presented by Bennet91 is invalid for both reasons presented below.



Number 1, it says some parents have "traditional views against co-habitation (even if they are not in the same room).”. This ignores the fact that cohabitation is legally defined as “A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.”.(1) This means that the couple has to actually be involved in a relationship that resembles marriage i.e. the same room and sexual relations. If this is not happening this cannot be classified as cohabitation.



Additionally, I need to point out here that my opponent in fact needs to provide verified statistics to show that males and females are incapable of sharing the same room without getting sexually involved for this position to be valid. As such the bold appeals to emotion such as “promotes fornication”, “morally compromising situation”, “At least gays being together won't cause college pregnancies” or “a "friend with benefits" situation. ” are all ludicrous statements that have zero backing and imply that males and females cannot be friends. I am sure if any of my female friends read this, they would be horrified to think that we have to have sex as that all mixed gender relationships are capable of.



Secondly, when Bennet91 says “a portion of parents pay for their child's college education” this is true. However, if they feel that strongly against an equality and society beneficial system, they are free to seek private housing where they can embrace their “traditional” sexist? values.



Counter Arguments



My opponents response to my equality argument is that “"20 % of the population is attracted to the same sex" doesn't mean they are entirely gay.” So? What does this have do with anything, I mean sure some of these people have bi-sexual orientations? In fact if we bring in bi-sexual orientation this value will probably be higher than 20%. I really have no idea why my opponent points this out and elaborates on it to such an large extent, as this was a statistic I brought up which I even said could be the normally accepted 10%.



My opponents critique of my argument for society is that meeting potential mates and creating long lasting business relationships can happen at a “more respectable time, it does not have to be while people are in their dormitories”. However, this ignores the fact that Facebook and Microsoft were created by roommates/dormitory mates.(2,3) So essentially by forcing people to share close quarters two businesses with a net worth of 122 billion dollars were created.(4,5) Now, while some of these relationships have gone sour the overall benefit for society would not have existed if these relationship did not happen in the circumstances they were forced to happen.



Regarding the criticism of shared bathrooms. This would be a valid criticism if shared bathrooms were not already getting legislated on a large scale.(6) Additionally, as adults I am sure that the males and female can come to an agreement on when and if they they want to share the same bathroom as happens already at the University of Maryland.(7)



My opponents criticism to my eradication of sexism argument start of with a false statement “this is less of an issue in most European countries.”. This is Con putting words in my mouth, I in fact talked about the USA and Britain as just two examples where sexism is less prevalent. He then goes on to attack my argument that this could never happen in Saudi Arabia as men will mistreat women and says that the only reason that this same situation could work with races was because “essentially race is just skin colour. Gender however is a lot more.” What rubbish, the only difference between men and women is a chromosome which leads to different sex organs and different thinking methods. If race is only skin color, then sex is only breasts. This is just a way for my opponent to avoid my argument which says that by forcing mixed genders to share a dormitory it will surely force men to be respectful of women. This assumption is based on that race example given in my round 2 argument.



While my opponent does stress they are not sexist, this does not detract from the line of argument that women are made to look weaker than men. This is not true. Additionally, if a sexist man gets married to a women what does this have to do with the argument? Should I be claiming that some serial killers also get married so we should let serial killers roam free?



Rebuttals to my opponent arguments:



My opponent says that his position in this debate is “The whole point of my side in this debate is that those "rights" aren't a good thing. ”. when referring to straight people being afforded the same right as homosexuals. This means my opponent needs to prove that discrimination against straight people is morally and legally acceptable. I look forward to this argument my opponent will surely put forward in their next round.



In closing my opponents arguments fail as they have no rational evidence based backing to make them stand up under scrutiny i.e. men and women can't be friends or heterosexuals deserve less rights. With my arguments in tact I hand the debate back to my opponent to make some positive arguments that verify his contentions.




(1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...


(3) http://www.nytimes.com...


(4) http://www.celebritynetworth.com...


(5) http://www.celebritynetworth.com...


(6) http://edition.cnn.com...


(7) http://www.resnet.umd.edu...





swagwhale

Con

First of all I never directly said that "males and females are incapable of sharing the same room without getting sexually involved". My opponent does admit however that it's a "great way to meet potential mates of the opposite or same sex". As there are always people who abuse any system it would be unrealistic to assume it would never go any further than that.

As for parents with "traditional" values, while they can seek private housing, this reduces their child's chances of socialising with his/her friends. It is not sexist for them to not want there child sleeping in the same premises as the opposite gender if it is to avoid a "morally compromising situation". They could have a son or daughter or even both, this does not mean they value either one more then the other.

When my opponent points out "Facebook and Microsoft were created by roommates/dormitory mates" they miss out that it was both times by two males. The rate of female programmers are declining, and yet technology is becoming an increasing part of our lives. It seems that males and females are just likely to get interested in different things. This may be why friend groups are often dominated by one gender. Basically what I'm saying is that people get to know their room mates best if there are fewer of them, and they are more likely to become good friends and/or work partners if they are of the same gender.

My opponent also says "I am sure that the males and female can come to an agreement on when and if they they want to share the same bathroom". Why can't this also apply to sleeping arrangements? Why can't there be three dormitories so that people can chose if they want the one with only their gender or both genders.(This would also allow people who don't identify as being male or females with an easy option.) As there would be people who felt more comfortable with the former their is no reason why they should have to "live in a private residence of campus" as my opponent says they can in the comments.

In the next paragraph my opponent seems to have done what they have accused me of doing, avoided the argument. Therefore there doesn't seem much to argue on this point.

My opponent says
"While my opponent does stress they are not sexist, this does not detract from the line of argument that women are made to look weaker than men. This is not true."
If my opponent means physically, this is incorrect. Sports competitions have different sections for male and female participants for a reason. It seems established fact that most men are physically stronger than most women. (There are, of course, exceptions, but this is the general case.)

Going back to round 2, my opponent claims that due to mixed sex dormitories "people you are in contact with is increased by 100 % if we consider a 1:1 ratio of women and men in the world". This is entirely false. The first reason being that being in a dormitory with someone does not mean you necessarily make you come into contact with them when in a large dormitory. The next reason is that many, if not most, are already in regular contact with he opposite sex (whether or no sharing a dormitory).

Finally I would like to point out that pro must give a reason why one sex dormitories should be banned. If not their is no reason why private schools should not be allowed to do as they please. Thank you to my opponent and voters for reading my argument.

References:
http://www.techrepublic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate.



My opponent in effect has reverted on his stance that we need to worry about promiscuity. As such this promiscuity argument was a Red Herring, and I ask the voters to carefully consider this when they vote. Additionally, bringing up a point that people may abuse the system is moot as people drive their cars to fast as well, but no one is asking to ban cars. Basically, any system will get abused but that is not a good reason to dismiss something that is beneficial for society, even if a few people are doing something wrong.



I am no longer actually sure what my opponents point is when he says “As for parents with "traditional" values, while they can seek private housing, this reduces their child's chances of socialising with his/her friends.” This is exactly why I say that mixed-sex housing should be the only type allowed as it increases socializing. In effect by arguing for socializing my opponent agrees with me.



Additionally, if a parent is worried about promiscuous behavior then they should never let their child out of their house. Maybe my opponent needs to elaborate what a compromising situation is as even meeting someone in the philosophy section of the library could be considered compromising. Should we stop students studying philosophy next?



I am not sure how my opponent pointing out the fact that Facebook and Microsoft were formed by males is relevant, as this debate has to do with roommates that should be allowed to live together (mixed-ex) and not have in the past lived together (uni-sex). I think if anything, that my opponent acknowledges this point about societal benefits shows that he agrees with my argument.



My opponent then goes on to point out groups of friends are dominated by one sex etc. Yes, this is true as men and women are isolated. This is the reason why I pointed out that the current system of separated sex dormitories is not beneficial to a society where men and women are meant to mix. In a fully functioning society men and women should be able to work together to advance the society. By living together in the same housing this will force people to make theses connections that are good for society.



Next my opponent has attacked the argument I gave for the use of bathrooms by different sexes, but no where does he say it impossible that the system cannot work. As such my opponent conceded this argument for functionality of my proposition.



Let me point out here, this argument is not about bathroom use, so pointing out that people should have a choice and then saying I agree by quoting me from the debate comments “live in a private residence of campus” is false. I am saying if someone does not want to adhere to this system they can live off campus, however they do not have this choice on campus. Additionally, they should not then complain about isolation as one of my opponents arguments states.



Regarding the men and women are equal in everything physical argument, i.e. whether women or men are stronger. This really is irrelevant to the debate so I will drop it.



Additionally, I do not understand why my opponent brings up the argument from round two where I said “people you are in contact with is increased by 100 % if we consider a 1:1 ratio of women and men in the world”. While being in contact I agree does not make you friends, it does improve the chances and this is the reason I made the statement. Just consider the Big Brother or Survivor television series, people make bonds when they are in close contact. Its human nature.



Regarding private higher education institutes, I agree a private institute can do what they want. However, what they want does not make it right. For example, if a University is uni-sex then this is not beneficial for society as laid out in my arguments. In the same way if we allow this, we should also allow said universities to discriminate based on race as well. After all there is no difference if we use the same line of reasoning. This is why laws are instated by the government. We should remember the government acts in the best interests of society and my arguments show that mixed-sex dormitories are in societies best interests.



To elaborate on the government doing what is right for society. The government has acted in the past for the rights of women by allowing them to vote. Now some people argued that allowing women to vote would be a bad thing, but as women are part of society the government has done what is good for the total society (men and women) and as such allowed women to vote in the face of opposition. This means the government can enforce this rule to create a healthier society even if it is a private business.



Lastly, my opponent has said I need to “pro must give a reason why one sex dormitories should be banned.” Needless to say I have supplied arguments which have not been rebutted and so my opponent needs to supply the evidence that my arguments are flawed, lest they forget that BOP is shared in this debate.



In this debate all my arguments stand uncontested, and my opponent has changed his stance on multiple points. I have shown that mixed-sex dormitories can provide benefits towards society in getting rid of sexism and gender inequality by forcing people to associate more with the opposite sex. This model is not only good for society but also good for the individual. I hope readers of this debate will see the strong and valid arguments I have made and vote accordingly.



I hand the debate back to my opponent for closing statement.


swagwhale

Con

My opponent states that " any system will get abused but that is not a good reason to dismiss something that is beneficial for society, even if a few people are doing something wrong". The problem being that in this case it is not a "few people" but a lot of people abusing the system. My opponent also states that "people drive their cars to fast as well, but no one is asking to ban cars". Speeding tickets exist to stop this. there are no speeding tickets for promiscuity.

My opponent then goes on to say that "mixed-sex housing should be the only type allowed as it increases socializing". My opponent has not given any proof of this, and it is quite likely not true. This becomes obvious when you increase the numbers dramatically. If you have a party with 1,000 people, and one with 10,000, in which one will any one person do the most socialising? It would be the same, because no single person would try to meet that many people in one night. Similarly, many people won't want to many people in their dormitory. If there's less people, everyone can get to know everyone else and feel comfortable.

My opponent says I need to "elaborate what a compromising situation is as even meeting someone in the philosophy section of the library could be considered compromising". Guns are considered dangerous to take onto planes, but string could be considered dangerous as it could be used to choke someone. My opponent asks "Should we stop students studying philosophy next?" I ask should we ban children taking yoyo's on aeroplanes as they contain string (which could be considered dangerous).

My opponent also seems to claim that unisex dormitories are the reason why men and woman form separate social groups. This argument can easily be shattered by the fact that teenagers do this to before they even leave their parents. My opponent also says " men and women should be able to work together to advance the society", the problem to this argument being that men and women often do work together. In his next line my opponent says "living together in the same housing this will force people to make theses connections ". Force is the word I don't like here. People should have the right to chose who they are connected with, and this should not be controlled by their room mates, which it definitely isn't. People make friends outside their dorm all the time.

My opponent then by extension compares uni-sex dormitories with sexism. I think I already tried to state why this is not the case, but I might as well say it again. Uni-sex dormitories do not discriminate against either sex. They are merely their because the founders thought that men and women should affiliate at a different time.

If I have showed the voters one thing, I hope it is that their are good points for uni-sex dormitories, even if you still think their are also good points for mixed-sex dormitories. This being said having both available offers students and parents the choice of what is in their opinion the better option, which is why you should vote con.

Thank you to my opponent for this debate and voters for reading it.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com...
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@schachdame: Thanks for the comments. Please don't be offended at the font size, I do it to make editing easier. I usually type my stuff up in an external program and have found this is the easiest way to make my arguments more readable.

Although, I do understand what you are saying, its almost like typing in CAPS.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
Part 1 Regarding the use of other users additional notes

I myself have the habit of posting my thoughts and ideas into the comment section, however is it not really original to use these comments for more than inspiration (which happened here). Usually I would blame the author of the comment post, but swagwhale specifically referred to the comment and intentionally used it. Con does a great job dealing with that grey zone problem and I"d say he deserves Credit for that.

Part 2 Rebuttal concerning gay/bisexual population

Whether the given 20% are bisexual or actually gay does not logically make a big difference to the argument. Spending so much time on setting the numbers right was waste of characters.

Part 3 Structure

Con"s argument structure is, though not inexistend, clearly messier and confusing than Pro"s this should be taken in account because the structure of the argument influences their quality.

Part 4 Sources

There are rarely any strong sources in this. Both used some which is fulfilling at least a minimum requirement. I was waiting for some hardcover-reference to set my mind in that point.

Part 5 Conduct

Pro is certainly the one with the better language and phrasing as well a better understanding of debate-language. Still, the intimidating effect of unusually large fulltext font size is something neither necessary nor polite. It can trigger defense reactions before the debate even properly started. In the days of automatic size-enhancement via Control+ there is no need to do this unless one want to push an emotional response.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Well, I think the arguments themselves were well articulated, and I think most of the links were there on each point. The main problem was just those impact stories. The way I've thought about impacts is this: if you're still able to ask the question "why does this matter?" without providing an answer that's incredibly obvious (i.e. murder is wrong because people die), then you're not done explaining it yet. Sometimes it seems like the terminal impact should be obvious, but you'd be surprised how simple it is to turn things that seem obvious. Equality might seem like an obviously good thing to seek, the same as freedom or diversity, but the reasons why aren't always obvious, and I've seen them turned into harmful impacts before.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Thanks for the RFD whiteflame. It was a tough debate as I wanted to debate a topic that was a bit different (honestly I was not even sure what I was going to argue when I started) and so I appreciate the feedback.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Heh, long as they are, I like doing them. It's good to reward people for a debate that includes a substantial amount of arguments and detail by providing them a full RFD detailing how I came to my decision. I don't really view it as killing myself.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
0.0
Whiteflame, you need to stop killing yourself over these RFD's
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Both sides' arguments suffer from a severe lack of links. In several cases, the arguments lack specific warrants to show that there's actually some harm being solved for here. I'll try to clarify.

Pro starts off the debate with 3 contentions. The first is for equality. I can somewhat understand this argument, but not its impacts. Homosexuals, in many cases, room with same sex individuals. Pro argues that their capacity to do this is good in some way, though he never elaborates on why that is the case. Their capacity to live together can form romantic relationships, and I could see some benefits in being roomed together with someone you could be romantically involved with, but they're never stated. The only harm Pro presents here is just that there's a double standard " homosexuals can room with same-sex individuals, so why can't heterosexuals room with the opposite sex? It makes sense that that's a double standard, but I never see a reason why I should consider this harmful to society. Sure, people are put out by it, but just being upset with a situation isn't a substantial harm of any sort.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
The second is for society. In this case, I'm perplexed, both by Pro's points and Con's responses. The logic here is that males and females have to interact in society at large, so they should also be required to occupy the same dorms such that they can get started off on the right foot. While I'm buying that there's some benefit here, Con does mention that we have these interactions regularly, so this is just a linear improvement to an already extant benefit, especially since you wouldn't be removing the ability of private schools to have single sex campuses. The main problem with this point is that its impacts are wonky. You say that it will provide personal and business connections, but I lack reasoning as to why those deep, long-term interactions should happen with someone of the opposite sex. The fact that women exist in the workplace is all well and good, but one can form business contacts with either men or women. I would have bought that doing so brings a diversity of thought into business dealings by including a larger subset of the population, but I never see that argument.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
The third is anti-sexism. This makes sense, but it's also missing links. Pro says it will happen because mixed race schools eradicated much of racism (a pretty bold claim, though at least partially supported by the link). He says that when people spend more time together, they learn that their differences are less than their similarities, and thus respect spawns. I'm not sure that respect is linked to this. Con brings up a good point that, if there's hatred, it's not going to suddenly disappear. The capacity for reasonable individuals to understand one another exists now, but forcing people who view each other in a derogatory light together is not necessarily going to solve for sexism. Saudi Arabia was probably not the best example to bring forward here, as it is an example of how this could go very wrong and result in beatings and killings, as Con stated. The response was really more of a dodge, saying that it would still be good in England or the U.S., but the problems could still exist there to lesser extents, not to mention that that doesn't erase the harm in places like Saudi Arabia. And since this applies everywhere, that concern still prevails to the end.

Meanwhile, Con's arguments are concerning as well. He says (quoting someone in the comments section " a big no-no by the way, so I'll be docking conduct for that) that there are parents who wouldn't send their kids to schools where this was the case, but I think Pro's responses to this show that not to be the case.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
They could live off campus, or in single rooms. Con's response that this will result in less socializing for these kids is a good one, but it's never explained to the extent that's necessary. Remember, these are the kids of families who hold onto sexist concerns about opposite sex roommates. They're the ones who need their minds changed the most. If their parents don't want them having a roommate, then they're going to take longer (and perhaps never make the transition) to a state of mind that is more accepting of that situation. That means that sexism prevails, and may in fact get worse. Also, not all "traditional" families can pay for solo rooms or off campus housing. To force them into this situation is net detrimental to poor people. Of course, neither of those arguments appear, so I buy Con's rebuttal and we move on.

The rebuttals to Pro's contentions, if they haven't been stated already, were pretty weak and shifting. Con rarely defended his points, often shifting to new ones rather than focusing on keeping them alive. For example, the argument about pregnancy isn't bad, but it's never explained why I should care about more college freshmen having sex regularly without any substantial intervention. I think there are harms there, but Con never states them. In fact, even one of his best arguments about abuse gets used to make a point that is never warranted (men are, on average, stronger than women) and only feeds Pro's arguments about sexism. If you had stayed on track with the Saudi Arabia example (not to mention the numerous others that would fit into the same category), this might have easily been a winning point, but it only appears in R2 and quietly fades into the background.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
iamanatheistandthisiswhyswagwhaleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: EDIT see comment section for RFD
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
iamanatheistandthisiswhyswagwhaleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Also, sources go to Pro, mainly because I felt Con's arguments were often without support and, more importantly, that his links didn't help his case.