Should girls be able to play football?
Debate Rounds (3)
I think girls should be able to play football because why ruin a girls dreams? I think not letting girls play is just being plain sexist. Girls and boys aren't made to not do certain things together. Girls can do anything boys can. Girls are as capable as boys. Also, children need to learn how to work together for later in life.
Acceptance round, as agreed upon. Good luck faith.
Thank you. Good luck to you too.
Girls and boys were not made to ONLY play sports. Girls were not made to just dance, sing, model, etc. Boys were not made to just play football, wrestle, box, etc. This world is becoming a disaster because it seems like it is an expectation for girls to do dance or something like that. If a girl wants to play football, then let her play. I mean, what is the point in not letting a girl throw and catch a ball that happens to be mainly played by boys. Children have grown up and been taught from age 1-20 about how to NEVER give up and ALWAYS follow your dreams, but then society suddenly denies that?! If it is a girl's dream to play, then let her play! yeah, she will get hurt, no argument about that, but boys also get hurt while playing football. Everything has its risks. There are girls built stronger than some boys, and some aren't, but does that even matter? And about girls not being strong enough. Girls give birth for crying out loud! Women carry a human being inside of themselves for 9 months. Ontop of that, having to do work as normal. And how do you think it even gets out? Don't you think that that would hurt? And the emotional part. When you break a bone, all humans will proably cry. It's not becasue they are wimpy or a sissy, its because its their instinct. If a girl wants to play football, she can. But, the catch is, she has to know that she WILL get hurt, and she cant change that. That is my argument.
Cool, lets get this started. First off, the resolution is pretty unclear, so I will do my best to interpret it's meaning (Pro hasn't responded to my comment yet). I am 90% sure this is meant to apply to girls who would want to play competitive league football, not just recreational, tossing-the-ball-around football. I am also going to limit the scope of my arguments to junior high and up, mainly because that is the time when football becomes dangerous and extremely competitive. More importantly, and this is based on my opponent's arguments, I think it is reasonable to assume this debate operates within the football institutions that are now present. What I mean is that the real debate here is 'should girls be allowed to play competitive, league football with boys'. If my opponent has a problem with this, we can figure it out in the comments. Although I'm fairly certain she would agree by these terms.
I will start with my argument and then move on to rebuttals. Let us be off!
Girls are not as physically capable as boys.
This is not sexism. This is the truth. The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of girls can't be competitive when playing against boys or men. This is why we have co ed sports. Girls can be competitive when playing against other girls and boys when playing against other boys. It is not wrong or politically incorrect to recognize and respond to gender differences. It simply makes sense. (If my opponent demands evidence of this claim I can easily provide it. Normally this point is taken for granted though so I won't bother unless Pro thinks it is a problem.)
The female exceptions to this rule are still not exempt.
Even when girls are physically capable of being competitive with boys in football, it still isn't reasonable to include them. There are two main reasons for this. One is the trouble of attempting to determine which girls are capable and which aren't. This would probably only segregate the genders further and cause major problems when girls weren't allowed on the team. The hassle isn't worth it. The second and stronger reason is that if the girls that are physically capable of playing football with the boys (very, very few) are also the best athletes on women's sports teams. If these girls, and more importantly women playing college and pro sports, play football, they won't be able to contribute to the girls' team where they can make more of an impact. Think of it this way: A 13 year old junior-high student is incredible at basketball, as good as most varsity boys at the school. Now does it make sense to place that child on the varsity team where he is a relatively mediocre player and makes a minimal impact, or on the junior-high team where he excels above competition and makes a drastic impact? The latter of the two options is more fair to the junior high kids and also leads to a greater impact by the junior high student.
Prepare for sports later in life.
The physical differences between men and women increase as age increases. This is why it is conceivable for a few women to be competitive against boys in basketball in high school but not conceivable for nearly any women to be competitive against men in basketball in the NBA. Now think of this. Logically, the girls who can play competitively against boys in football are also the girls who go on to college and pro athletics, given their obviously high physical capability and athletic skill. It doesn't make sense to prepare girls to play a sport they aren't going to be able to play after high school. Especially these talented girls, who could go on to great things in future athletics, but won't if they play co ed football.
(There is quite a lot of filler and unusable points in my opponent's arguments, so I will filter over them.)
If it is a girl's dream to play then let her play
This isn't a reasonable point and it is not supported by any fact. Just because a person wants to do something it doesn't necessarily make sense for them to do it.
she will get hurt...but boys also get hurt
While this is true, girls are actually more prone to injuries than boys. So if boys are commonly injured in football, girls have an even greater danger of being injured.
There are girls built stronger than some boys, and some aren't, but does than even matter?
Yes, it does matter for the reasons I have laid out in my argument.
Girls give birth for crying out loud!
Yes they do. But that is completely different than playing football. I'm not saying it isn't possible for a girl to play football, I'm saying that it isn't reasonable for them to play football, with boys that is. And, in danger of sounding sexist, don't you think a man's body structure (other than the obvious big difference) would be more physically capable (not counting in emotions) of carrying and delivering a baby?
And the emotional part
I am not debating emotions here. Just physicality. So this point doesn't really apply.
Since my argument isn't too long and is pretty simple, I won't bother to do a recap. I do want to stress again that I'm not trying to be sexist and I really don't think this argument is sexist. Recognizing differences between genders isn't a bad thing. They exist and denying that is preposterous. Anyway, looking forward to your arguments next round Faith.
Note: If any claim I made requires proof, it is probably in my one-size-fits-all source.
faith1121 forfeited this round.
I thought that might happen.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.