The Instigator
Alysin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Master_Riddler
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Should girls be able to play football?

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 6 votes the winner is...
The_Master_Riddler
Started: 2/3/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,818 times Debate No: 29835
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (6)

 

Alysin

Pro

I believe that girls should be allowed to play on football teams. Girls are just as strong as guys and stronger than them in some areas. Girls can take a hit just like a guy can. The only reason We are not allowed to is because of the stereotype that all girls are weak. Coaches can be very sexist in not allowing girls to play boy sports.
The_Master_Riddler

Con

Thanks for the topic Alysin. This is a topic that I have been debating in my head.
Now I want to make this clarification. This is not a debate on whether girls should play football, but should girls play football with guys. This will help clarify the decision making of the debaters on this site.


Football- not soccer or foozball, but American football
play- be on a sport team, not recreational

I hope my opponent agrees to those definitions as I accept the debate.
I will post my argument in the second round.

Debate Round No. 1
Alysin

Pro

I do agree to those definitions. And I amazing glad that you except my challenge. Girls and guys should be allowed to play on The same team because girls are just as tough as guys are.
The_Master_Riddler

Con

Contention One: If girls and boys play together in sports, the rules will have to be curved to ensure fairness.
I do have a personal example for this.One day, I was watching a recreational co-ed softball game. I saw that after a guy threw the fourth ball to the girl, she walked to second base instead of first base like normal. I was puzzled and started to eavesdrop on a conversation on why that was so. A player said that they do this so that nobody can walk the guys and strike out the girls. They say that this puts people at a more favorable position so that they can actually steal thrid aand things like that. But this simply ruined the game of softball. Not only that, but because it was co-ed, they had to throw the ball extremely slow in order for the girls to hit the ball. It simpply ruins the sport.

Contention Two: In dealing with football and certain positions, the more you weigh the more of an advantage you would have. This is very important because men are able to support more weight than women. For example, many linebackers are at least 200lbs and that is considered healthy, but if a woman was to carry that kind of weight, then that would be unhealthy. So unless you can find fit and healthy women, women would be typically at a disadvantage when it comes to defending a 250 lb 6ft 7in wide receiver.



If they make it mandatory that girls should play football with guys, then they should make it mandatory that women should do regular pushups instead of "girl pushups", which are ten times easier than regular pushups.

Refutations:

Girls are just as strong as guys and stronger than them in some areas.
My opponent doesn't clarify in which areas that women are stronger than men. This should be ignored.

Girls can take a hit just like a guy can.
Yeah, girls can take a hit, just not the hits that you would endure in football. I am 6'4" and 160lbs. I am a guy, but I know for a fact that I can't take a hit that a football player can.

The only reason We are not allowed to is because of the stereotype that all girls are weak.
There are other reasons, but revealing those would weaken my case in particular.

Coaches can be very sexist in not allowing girls to play boy sports.
My opponent concedes to the point that football is a guy sport. This means that if it's a guy sport, then whyy should girls be playing it? Bras are for girls. Should we let guys wear them?

Girls and guys should be allowed to play on The same team because girls are just as tough as guys are.
First, this is a subjective argument. This shouldn't be taken seriously because there might be one girl who is tougher than a guy. But that doesn't mean generally that all girls are tougher than all guys.
Also, men are more physical than women meaning they have more physical attributes that help them excel in a sport that women are not fully capable of playing.
http://wiki.answers.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Alysin

Pro

A girl can be a line backer and weigh that much with still being healthy. There was a girl that went to a middle school right down The street from my house and she was a line backer. The rules were not changed for her. She played as The guys played and was not treated any different. The fact that you say that The rules would need to be wavered is a joke. Just because a couch changes their rules does not mean it is mandatory for all sports to do this. Everyone believes boys should be allowed to play girls sports such as cheer leading , volleyball , or even ice skating. So why should girls not be treated The same in saying that they can play on The sports they want to?

Girls should be able to play with boys as are boys are allowed to play with girls.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...
The_Master_Riddler

Con

I forgot to post my third contention.

Contention Three: Sexual Activity

Supposed a team had boys and girls on it. Then, as the team, starts gaining chemistry, you and a guy start gaining "chemistry" and love gets in the picture.


Refutations:

To prove men are physically stronger than men:
Wiki Answers says

On average men are physically stronger than women because the average man is larger, more robust and has a greater proportion of muscle mass than the average women. Having longer limbs means you have a longer lever to exert force with, having larger muscle mass (controlled by testosterone) means there is more pushing force at the end of the lever. Men are generally more robust meaning their bone structure is larger than that of women, this is needed to cope with the extra forces exerted by the increased muscle. If the bones weren't thickened they would fracture more easily. Women carry a greater proportion of body fat than men and have trimmed back on muscle tissue, it has been suggested that these are adaptions to make them more fit to carry babies to term and produce milk when food is scarce. Muscle tissue uses a lot of energy even at rest, getting rid of some muscle and replacing it with fat reserves would be a wise plan if food was hard to come by and you had the extra energy demands imposed by pregnancy and nursing.

Cited from website posted in previous round.

http://www.google.com...

A girl can be a line backer and weigh that much with still being healthy.
Due to the body mass index chart above, this proves that a woman can't be 200 lbs and considered healthy unless is above 6'5" which is very hard to find a woman that height.

The fact that you say that The rules would need to be wavered is a joke.
I didn't say that the rules needed to be waivered. I said changed. Waiver means to change temporarily (personal definition), but change is more permanent than that.

Debate Round No. 3
Alysin

Pro

I have said all I needed to say. Thank you for debating with me.
The_Master_Riddler

Con

All arguments were refuted. Pro has not met the burden of proof.
Vote Con.

Thanks for the topic. :D

Also, I don't really agree with guys playing volleyball or cheerleading or anything like that, but I won't debate about it.
I close with this: there are pro football players who don't even want their sons playing this sport because it is so violent. Do we really want a girl playing a sport when men go through concussions and other harmful injuries?
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TD_Cole 1 year ago
TD_Cole
Females have their own football league. It's called the Lingerie Football League. Believe it ran through Spike TV. Nevertheless I played little league football when I was ten, a female was on the team.
Posted by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
Then go do it! :D
Posted by Alysin 1 year ago
Alysin
I can do what I want -.-
Posted by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
BTW, to anyone awarding sources to CON, he used 'wiki answers'. Not really a credible source IMHO, although he certainly made it look that way through sheer persuasion.
Posted by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
Hmmm, tough debate to judge.

CON argued very well, substantiated his point with sources, and even gave PRO hints on how to weaken his argument.

PRO made one very good assertion, that a woman who CAN give and take a hit like any man SHOULD be allowed to play football with the guys.

CON's counter to this was IMHO exceptionally weak...BMI is a joke as far as I'm concerned. I've seen BMI standards applied to guys with less than 2% body fat being called "obese" and "unhealthy" because their physical criteria didn't gel with BMI. PRO didn't counter this, but regardless CON's point here did not adequately refute PRO's assertion.

PRO's assertion is, unfortunately for CON, directly relevant to the resolution, which CAN be interpreted to ask whether or not girls CAN play football (i.e. the phrase "be able" in the resolution), in which case one exception to this rule would be enough to demonstrate this.

Because PRO did not address CON's point about BMI, I will make arguments a tie. PRO's S&G can use some work.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
> the burden of proof has yet to be met by either side.

Pro/instigator generally has the burden of proof, unless stated otherwise in round one.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
> "And not all mean are stronger then women... but if she wants to play she should be allowed to"

You unfortunately agreed to Con's round one definitions, which defined "playing" as participating in a non-recreational team, such as a college or pro team. First, you don't "choose" to be on such teams. Second, the players selected are the creme de la creme. Having conceded to those, your best line of attack might have been to demonstrate *some* women are strong enough. Alternatively, you could've argued for the role of kicker--which tends to be less meaty to begin with. Kickers also have rules on the books protecting them from being run into or roughed up.
Posted by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
I think this is a learning experience for PRO, so just let her be in the comments section. :)
Posted by No-this-is-patrick 1 year ago
No-this-is-patrick
What is the point, Alysin , of debating on the comments section? That is what rounds are for.
Posted by Alysin 1 year ago
Alysin
If girls tried out for a coed boys football team they would be treated The same as The guys. They would have to match all The criteria that they boys would have to. No special changes at all. Because if they can't play The way the boys do then what's the point of playing football? If a girl wants to play football then she would need to go through all The steps just like a boy. She can't expect to be treated differently than her male players. But if she wants to play she should be allowed to (meeting The necessary requirements)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 1 year ago
tmar19652
AlysinThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave up
Vote Placed by BigSky 1 year ago
BigSky
AlysinThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont agree that girls shouldn't... but Alysin's arguments were mediocre...
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 1 year ago
wrichcirw
AlysinThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments...you need to put in a bit more effort in debating, PRO.
Vote Placed by rross 1 year ago
rross
AlysinThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ow it really hurts to vote this way. Alysin. You so could have won this. Your arguments were better. Just remember, debating is not like arguing in real life. In real life, when a boy says something dumb like (you're clearly far from dumb, con. this isn't about you. it is just an example) "girls can't play football because they're designed to be sexy and breastfeed" or something, IN REAL LIFE it's best to ignore it. However, the opposite is true in debating. You have to tear down his arguments one by one. If they're obviously false or silly, it's even more true. And don't forget to summarize (repeat) all your best arguments in the last round. Con won this debate because he did all that. But Pro should have won on this topic. Next time.
Vote Placed by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
AlysinThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted the claim that women are just as strong as guys with an encyclopedia reference, rebutted each of Pro's arguments, and his own arguments weren't contested. Arguments & Sources to Con.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 1 year ago
eastcoastsamuel
AlysinThe_Master_RiddlerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was not able to effectively argue much. Con was able to successfully rebut all the points that Pro has easily, while Pro displayed her own points before giving up in the last round.