The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Single-sex Schools Are Good For Education

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,432 times Debate No: 38513
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The first round is for acceptance only. No arguments should be placed in the first round.

*This debate should go for three (arguments) rounds.
*No new arguments should be placed in the third and fourth round.
*Limited to personal view only. Opponent should not have sources or ideas from any sites.


I accept the terms as set by my opponent and look forward to a respectful and thoughtful debate.

In accordance with Juney's conditions I will wait for round two before posting my arguments.

Thanks and good luck to you, sir.
Debate Round No. 1


(As a college student, I say "Good Luck To You, also!")

Now, I say that single-sex schools are NOT good for education.

Point 1. Students should not only develop their intellect and their ability to write and read but students should also be taught on other aspects such as: physical, social and emotional.

I say this is one best point why single-sex schools are NOT good for education for the reason that when these schools exist many children and teenagers, especially those who are studying at such schools, would have limited emotional content. Consequently, they would be less sensitive when it comes to relationships and social activities where it requires them to be involve with other persons especially of those opposite sexes. They would be less responsible to themselves and other persons also when they grow up and do not have enough involvement in such environment.

Point 2. Students would only have limited basic knowledge even on how they would react to some things involving two persons of opposite sex.

At this point, not only they would be ignorant to these situations but it also affects their social health. Since these schools practice a 'single-sex class' (as I would call it) they would only observe common attitudes and characters on which their gender would have. For example: In a class of girls, these students would only observe on how girls would react to some situations and they themselves accept it as wrong or correct. I could say so, since girls think alike. The same aspect would apply for boys.

Point 3. Teachers would be practiced less than those of the other schools.

I could imagine so. It is because these teachers would only be teaching a class of the same gender. Their teaching ability would then be limited to those of the class he/she is teaching to. The teacher would not then have variations of teachings to make his/her lessons clearer since the teacher would only be talking to a class of the same gender in which the students think alike.

Therefore, I could simply conclude that single-sex schools are NOT good for education. It applies for both students and teachers.

I now let my opponent make his arguments.


Thank you for your reiteration of good wishes.

This round I will simply be posting my position and supporting beliefs. I will use the coming rounds for refutation and expounding on these ideas.

My position is that single-sex schools are good for EDUCATION purposes.

1) Sexual attraction is one of the most powerful desires in the world. Even subconsciously, we tend to act differently (body language-wise) when members of the opposite sex are around. Behaviors that animals exhibit during courting are also exhibited by humans (often subconsciously) when in situations involving opposite genders. For example, women may 'preen' themselves by playing with their hair, and men may show signs of assertiveness and dominance. If we do that subconsciously, then how much more so when we are around people that are attractive to us. It steers the mind in one direction, and causes problems in concentration, limits individuality, and limits expression.

2) Men and women are very different by nature. They think differently, and approach problems - be it emotional, social, and/or intellectual - very differently. That being the case, it is important to teach them in the way that they learn best and to utilize their learning style in order to maximize potential.

3) The classroom is not a social environment. Order is necessary in a school and during the time a lesson is in session is not a time for developing social skills. Many scenarios in a classroom are not conducive to a social atmosphere, such as a need for silence and concentration. People don't talk freely or deal with others the way they normally would in a social setting. There are other places for socializing with the opposite gender but not in a classroom, where learning is the goal.

I also thought to mention that your opponent just made *her* arguments. :D

Looking forward to yours.
Debate Round No. 2


[I am terribly sorry for my mistake. I was so in a hurry writing everything down and barely looked back to what I wrote, especially in the last sentence. Please do forgive me. :) ]

Now, at first she points out that "Sexual attraction is one of the most powerful desires in the world." She also said that we tend to act differently when people of opposite genders are around. What she is trying to state here is that when men and women are put in the same environment, these people would lose focus and concentration and in result they limit their individuality and expression. This does not stay true most of the time, though. What mostly happens in these situations is that a person would somehow manage to make that other person of opposite gender as his/her own inspiration to continue with his/her studies. These students would then be continuing with their studies to show that they can have good academic performances. Consequently, they would be studying hard. Also in these situations, only a few would get carried away by their feelings and makes their studies being less prioritized than their admired person. Even though having students on a relationship in the school, their teachers or advisers would then know it and thus give them advices to what they should be doing. In the end, these students can still learn academically, still have focus and their individuality and expressions would remain not too limited.

Secondly, she points out that men and women should be separated when it comes to learning and to maximize their potentials. Also, she clearly said, "Men and women are very different by nature." This statement also tells us exactly why single-sex schools are not good for education. By this difference, this would force the students to develop their cooperation, team effectiveness and communication skills. This would allow students to widen their gaze and knowledge for the reason that they would be receiving much information both opposing and not. In this case, not only mentally and academically they will learn but socially and emotionally, also. It is because when there would be group activities in a class, these students would be engaged in sharing their ideas and showing their reactions to what the results should be. These students would then be formulating better ideas from both of their good and bad ideas. Finally, just by sharing and helping each other, they would then be developing their own ways on how they should react towards problems of their own in life or in school through the events that they encounter. Actually, this 2nd argument does not fully contradict to my second point where I said that "Students would only have limited basic knowledge even on how they would react to some things involving two persons of opposite sex." I meant here of people of opposite sex working together to be better.

Thirdly, she clearly states in her last argument that the classroom is totally not a social environment or it cannot be one. I disagree, because most courtships and relationships start at school. It starts from a "crush" or "admirer" and grows up to being your spouse in life. She also said that when a lesson is in session, it is not a time for developing social skills. I do not think so. Why would developing social skills be prohibited in a discussion. I think getting to know the meaning of everything your teacher says is one social skill. I think social skill is a skill where you know how to communicate well and interact with other persons. And that this skill is not limited to persons of different sex but to everyone of us.

Concluding, single-sex schools are still not good for education.

What do you think? :)


[There's nothing to forgive. People make mistakes. I just wanted to let you know I am female. But thank you for having the courtesy to apologize.]

I'd also like to point out that at first I had thought the 'no sources' rule would be a fun way to try debate, essentially debating over opinion. But a lot of our disagreements seem to be on facts themselves, and I find that to be disadvantageous to the debate.

I hear what you're saying, but strongly disagree. You write, "What mostly happens in these situations is that a person would somehow manage to make that other person of opposite gender as his/her own inspiration to continue with his/her studies." But that's not the way it works. That only applies if the specific person in mind values education as an admirable goal. If not, they wouldn't care to study. Sexual attraction is very strong, to the point that people may change themselves or put on appearances in order to appeal to the opposite sex. By simply having students of different genders in one class room, you open up for self-conscious feelings and limitation. For example, take a student who wants to contribute to class, but because he/she is concerned that their statement may be wrong, may make him/her look like a nerd, or make him/her look stupid, they are unwilling to participate. In single-sex classes a lot of that pressure is taken away because no one is trying to impress anyone else - the environment is strictly one of education. Even in a case where someone places their boyfriend/girlfriend as the source of inspiration for their studies, being separated while learning will allow them to give the proper attention necessary to their classes.

The goal of going to school is to learn, and (on occasion) to teach students how to learn by themselves. By that definition, it doesn't make a difference how a student learns, but rather that they understand their subject properly. By having boys and girls in the same classroom, it does not ensure that they will come away with a proper understanding of a subject because the learning style is not suited to their needs. I can bring a personal example. I volunteer in a kindergarten. The first half of the day I'm with only girls, and the second half, with both girls and boys. By that contrast, I often see just how different students are.

With your permission, I'm going to conclude this a little bit later. I'm really busy right now and will probably not get a chance for the next day or so, but I didn't want to forfeit this round. The next round I will continue to argue my points and bring some refutations to your points. Once again, my apologies.
Debate Round No. 3


Actually, I am aware that being limited to personal view only would become one disadvantage to both debaters but since I had never seen or observed any single-sex schools on my life, I would just like to share my opinions and as to the reason why I think of that way. :)

I usually see those situations in schools, yes. By that situation, I just thought if that situation continues, schools would then not be for education but for people to be with each other. You missed one point as to the reason why schools exist. It was actually made for education basically... ... I think. Then, for that reason, it could be used as to why these situations neither continue nor spread throughout the year. Teachers or other elder persons engaged in any schools should always know about these situations and they should know how to handle these kind of attitude. So, we could say that these persons who teach the students, i.e. teachers, principals, instructors, etc., should be the one who would take full responsibility to the learning of the students. They should make sure that the students should learn from whatever they do in school. Also, because of this, we can somehow say that students would learn self-control, good manners and right conduct at the end of every school year. By this then, they would not be having problem on making the decision that education is greater than having a relationship with another student. Therefore, students learn more efficient when they are exposed to different surroundings and making them learn from their mistakes.

The goal of going to school is indeed for students to learn and teach them to learn by themselves. That is why, students should also be involved in different activities comprising of both genders. They will be able to learn more efficient when they are exposed to their own way of learning and for them to improved their own *way* of learning. I just want to put out that several different mistakes can be done by a single student and that teachers should know to use it against the student to completely improve the student's ability to learn by themselves. The students may be thinking that their opinions may be wrong but sharing them would be the only way that they could improve in their studies. I believe that the way a person learns is important, it is because it can really make someone worse or better than he looks. If the way of learning of someone is the longest way he learned, why won't people help that person and teach that person a simpler and an easier way to do something. And contradicting to your chosen quote, it is if you judge something not like you, a human being. But because we are talking about schools and students here, you can judge a student by the way he learns. When you observe one way of learning by someone and you found it to be wrong and complicated, you can do something by simply teaching that student a simpler way or an easier way where the student can learn the easiest. Then in that way, students won't live life thinking it is not stupid.

I actually did not meant for boys and girls to be in same room to make a deep relationship with each other, but I meant it to be in a way that these students would know how boys think and behave or the other way around - about girls. In that way, they would be more understanding with each other. Then, they would be more active to interact with other boys or girls when activities involve such interactions. And so, we never could say that small relationships ALWAYS goes next to bigger relationships. Students can use this relationship in a way that they could easily help each other easily since they would be knowing each other by then.

Lastly, I don't think so, that a class having both boys and girls is completely nor more detrimental to their education than having them in different classes. I say so since in this way students know how to behave differently and maintain good character easier than if they are all of the same gender. You have said that girls are more social and boys are more active am I right? I can say that since boys are active, schools have to put balance at this point and so girls have to be put in. I don't trust that boys in the same room would not be a good choice since this boys would be developing naughtiness by themselves. And as for the teachers, I can still say that teachers in these such schools, they would be more slowly developed and learn than those of not.

Single-sex Schools Still Remain Not Good For Education.

As for this last round, I say, "Many THANKS to MoralityProfessor for making this a very good and clean debate for me. You don't sound like a High School student to me. You talk really good. :)
For voters, thanks in advance for reading and decide whoever you think is better. God Bless Us All!
Good Luck To Us! May The Better Speaker Win! Vote Straight, please! :) !


Your explanation on sources was very interesting; I personally was educated in a single-sex high school, so many of my points come from personal experiences.

"... we could say that these persons who teach the students, i.e. teachers, principals, instructors, etc., should be the one who would take full responsibility to the learning of the students..."
To some extent, maybe. But, at the end of the day, I can tell you, it is the students that need to take responsibility for themselves. In order to ensure that teachers give over whatever must be taught, they would have to be perfect. In the most idealistic setting, guidance might be able to help a student overcome certain situations and difficulties, but the ultimate decision would be left to themselves. And at a young age (even at an older age) it's difficult to resist certain temptations and desires, specifically talking here about sexual attraction. To leave that in the hands of students is to open up a host of other problems for students and teachers alike.
"Therefore, students learn more efficient when they are exposed to different surroundings and making them learn from their mistakes."
Just to point out - learning from mistakes is good. Making mistakes in order to learn from them is not. Putting someone in a situation where they are likely to make a mistake in order so that they should learn from it is not a good idea. For example, a friend of mine used to deal with drugs. She doesn't anymore, and fortunately it was not a severe case where she was addicted to them. But she felt herself slipping in that direction and it gave her a profound experience in life - richer than what she had before. But were you to ask her if she would recommend drugs in order to come to that revelation, she would say no. Because it causes more harm than good.

The quote by Albert Einstein was saying that different people are good at different things and just because someone isn't good at something doesn't make them stupid. So, once again, my belief is that the way a student learns is not important (in regards to anyone else, that is), as long as they come to an understanding. To expand on my idea that men and women are different, it seems that schools try to push everyone to conform to the same standards - that everyone is the same and should be treated thusly when that is not the case. Men and women are naturally different and to force them to conform to similar standards limits them immensely. Instead, we should take pride in our differences and use them to become the best we can be. My point is, and this applies to some of your other arguments as well, that if a boy is more active in general, then by that standard we teach them to learn! We take that and utilize it to make them understand their subjects better. By making it seem that everyone needs to be equally active and equally social (as an example), we cast tremendous limitations on a person's individuality. My apologies for the long rant, however our society has tried to give everyone the same rights but have attempted to make everyone the same in order to do so!

My point still stands that learning how to deal with the opposite sex is not something that will be learned in the classroom anyway. (And whatever is learned is minimal.) Dealing with and understanding the way they think is something that happens outside the classroom. The benefits of learning separately far outweigh the benefits of learning together because learning to deal with members of the opposite sex is something that will happen more proficiently outside the classroom.

As for the teachers, as long as they understand the subject properly, it shouldn't concern them how they are teaching it. Each new class will bring its own reservoir of freshness and a new outlook on things, regardless of who is in it.

Wow. Thank you for your kind words. I found the debate to be very respectful and enlightening as well so thank you for your part in that. Much appreciated and good luck to you now and in future debates!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
Here are refutations to your arguments.

For both 1 and 2, you're assuming that these students have been cut off entirely from communication with the opposite gender. My argument is that in an environment of learning, a class of both boys and girls is detrimental to their education, obstructing their focus. In social activities however - after school activities, for example, they have the chance to interact with one another.

As for point 3, a teacher is not required to only teach in one school. If they are interested in understanding things from both sides of the spectrum as a career goal, nothing is stopping them from working at two schools, or, as I said earlier, from working at a co-Ed school with separate classes.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
My sincerest apologies for cutting the debate short like that. Due to mistiming on my part, I thought I would be free to post the round for the next hour, but was not. Here is my continuation of the argument.

So I was talking about the preschool I volunteer in....
The girls are much more social, where the boys are more active. We want to be able to teach students information in the best way possible, not necessarily teach them several different ways to learn the same subject.
"These students would then be formulating better ideas from both of their good and bad ideas..."
My response to that is that, 'Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its life thinking it is stupid."- Albert Einstein. So too, I believe that the *way* a person learns isn't important. It doesn't make someone better or worse if they are a visual learner as opposed to an auditory learner. But it is best to utilize the way they learn to the maximum.

R"lationships do start at school, but not necessarily in the classroom. It's the time between classes that are used for socializing. Obviously, any place that has more than one person can be used to socialize - including jails, hospitals and even a hostage situation. The point here is that some places allow for a more personal, intimate socialization and some are more limited. The fact is that most lessons are not discussions but rather a teacher giving information. Dealing with a teacher is a social skill, but developing a personal relationship in the middle of a classroom is not the appropriate time or place. Developing social skills is important, but it can be done in other ways. For example, I know of a school that is co-Ed but separates boys and girls for classes. And surely there are times other than the classroom where boys and girls can interact.

I'll be posting refutations to your comments within the next half hour, but I don't have enough room here due to character limitations.
No votes have been placed for this debate.