Single sex education system is better than a co-ed system.
Debate Rounds (4)
I am glad I can bring this topic here. Presumably, it has already been debated - the better. We can at least use prior debates as source.
1. Semantic allowed
2. Pro supports the idea that Single sex education system is better - so he takes burden of proof
3. Con refute
4. Winner is determined by quality, development of arguments and forming of arguments, semantic etc.
I am looking forward to have a nice and entertaining debate
I'll start off, as I always do when this is the case, with the disclaimer that this is not my actual belief. I am debating this because I like the challenge, and the arguments are not an accurate reflection of my actual beliefs.
In this debate, I will be proving that Resolved: Single Sex Education System is Better Than a Co-ed System.
In order to properly assess the resolution, certain definitions must be recognized. First, we must define better, as we are arguing over which of the two options are better in the round.
Better: Greater in excellence or higher in quality
Next, in order to ensure we're all clear on what we're arguing over, we must define the different levels of education in the debate.
Coed: Of or relating to an education system in which both men and women attend the same institution or classes; coeducational 
Single-Sex Education: the practice of conducting education where male and female students attend separate classes or in separate buildings or schools
I believe that educational systems are commonly known, and unless one of the two debators have conflict in the future over the topic, there is no need to define it.
Contention 1: Co-ed education provides unneeded distractions.
One of the arguments that comes to the front of the Coed Vs. Singe Sex education debate is that Coed education provides for too many distractions in school. This problem exists in all age groups. Whether it's in early education institutions like elemntary schools where the students think that boys/girls are gross, or when students are in high school and hormones are raging. These distractions lead to less attention on schoolwork or student participation in classes as students of one sex are trying to impress or date students of the opposite sex, especially with males.  This lack of attention would then lead to lower grades and less information learned and retained by students, thus undermining th entire educational system. Likewise, those that are intimidated by the opposite sex rather than try to impress them would be intimidated and so would not be able to properly focus on their schoolwork, or to properly socialize in the school environment.  These distractions in a coed environment serve to impact academics, and undermine the educational system as a whole. Therefore, a coed academic enviorment would be of lower quality than a single-sex academic environment, and so it would be considered "better".
Contention 2: Single-sex students perform better than coed students.
On average, Students in a single-sex academic environment perfom better than those in a coed academic environment. Although both sexes benefit as a whole, women receive an overall higher benefit from single-sex education. Research shows that they are more active in in class, develop higher self-esteem, score higher on aptitude tests, are more likely to choose stereotypically male-dominated careers, and do better in their careers after college. 
Furthermore, studies performed in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, New York, Canada, and Ireland show that both boys and girls begin to thrive when the distractions and social pressures provided in coed classrooms are removed by seperating the sexes, and there are marked decreases in discipline problems .
Contention 3: Coed Schools are counter-productive to the students' needs
Not only are Single-Sex academic institutions better for students, but Coed academic institutions actually hinder the needs of students, particularly to the male population. According to a study on the matter, "When young boys arrive at school today they enter a world dominated by women teachers and administrators as the percentage of male teachers in the nation's public schools is at the lowest level in 40 years. The girls around them read faster, control their emotions better, and are more comfortable with today's educational emphasis on cooperative study and expressing feelings. Boys favor visual processing and do not have the hand-motor control that girls readily achieve in early grades. There's hardly any of the physical action, competition, or structure boys so often crave. And they'd rather do just about anything than express their feelings. For these and other reasons, boys have trouble paying attention in class. They often ignore instructions and generate sloppy work. They are three to four times more likely to suffer from developmental disorders, and twice as likely as girls to be classified as learning-disabled. Many are punished for physical outbursts, controlled and medicated simply for behaving like boys (1 in 5 Caucasian boys spends time on Ritalin). They may not even be allowed to run during recess. This means that boys often get off to a bad start, fail to catch up, and often develop an aversion to school."  Furthermore, a department of education study shows that boys in a coed environment are 50% more likely to repeat a grade, and drop out of schools a third more often than girls .
Because Coed schools provide harmful distractions, Single-Sex students perform better than Coed students, and Coed schools are counter productive to the needs of students, I respectfully urge a pro vote.
I thank my opponent gratefully for accepting this debate. I hope it will be exciting and amusing for both of us. I admire his ability to take this debate up in spite of his actual beliefs. I deeply believe that my English deficiency won't spoil this debate.
I will prove my claims in the same order like my opponent presented them. My assignment is to counter "Single Sex Education System is Better Than a Co-ed System". I agree with all definition which my opponent has presented.
I have got through your sources you provided and the whole text you wrote. Your main statement is that Coed education provides for too many distractions in school which I don't agree at all. I bring quotation from article you provided: "The level of distraction that students may experience from being in class with the opposite sex does not typically come into play until they are older.". Thus students aren't distracted until they reach puberty (age around 12-13). So your claim should be restricted to high-school students otherwise your claim appears to be irrelevant. For my another statement I would like to attach another quotation here: "There are many students, who maintain their social connections and still are able to concentrate in a coed school, it really just depends on the individual child.". So in general the distraction in Co-ed schools depends on individuals. Some are able to resist and focus on education and some yield to it. Even though the distraction cause some damage the problem to adjust to a co-ed work atmosphere after students graduate is much harder. Therefore I consider taking co-ed school as better choice for student who has determination to study.
I admit that Pro brought a very strong evidence and formulated his argument straightforward. But luckily I have dug out a proof which refute his argument fully. My opponent brought evidence which proof that Single-Sex schools perform better than co-ed. I totally agree but these schools tend to be more academically rigorous, and the students who attend them are strong learners already. As you can see Pro didn't bring evidence WHY it is like it is. The problem is hidden in the students as individual. The students choose those school just for reason that single-sex schools are more serious, difficult, and wealthier. Thus they tuition is much bigger. But this schools don't give a student an experience in field of working with opposite-sex. This only co-ed schools can provide.
This argument is slightly confusing and not-clear. Female teachers don't make the difference between Co-ed and Single-sex schools because of simple reason. Logically, the ratio should be same on both schools. The point that most of teachers and administration are females doesn't support the idea why single-sex schools are better than Co-ed. Moreover, It isn't reason why girls study better than boys. And this claim is false. Because boys are better in mathematics. Thus the claim that boys have problem paying attention in class aren't girls but other issues. So your whole argument. seems invalid since the problem of worse grades isn't settled in opposite-sex but in lack of interest in class from side of boys.
In the lines above I have put some my arguments. I've summarized that Single-sex school aren't better than co-ed and co-ed schools prepare students to work together and be accustomed to each other. This is one of the biggest disadvantages when student of single-sex school graduate.
Thank you for your attention I hope you liked my arguments.
I forgot to include this in my opening statement, so I'd just like to thank my opponent for introducing this topic. I hadn't debated it yet, and I'm happy for the chance.
As my opponent has not provided his own arguments (as the con he doesn't technically have to) and instead focused on negating mine (which is why he doesn't have to, if all of my arguments fall he wins) I will devote the entire R2 to negation of rebuttals. I will adress each attack against my case individually, and bold why the attacks fail.
My opponent's rebuttal of C1 revolves around the fact that not everybody is distracted by the opposite sex, through arguing that 1.) younger children aren't distracted, 2.) Not every teen is distracted, and 3.) Students don't have the ability to interact with the opposite sex. I will adress each claim individually.
1.) My opponent brought up a claim made by my own source, stating that "The level of distraction that students may experience from being in class with the opposite sex does not typically come into play until they are older." However, the key phrase here is The Level of distraction. It does not say that younger children are not distracted by the opposite sex (in fact, it even says "[they] that may think they are gross"), simply that it's not as distracting as sexual urges. The distraction still occurs in early education, but not as much as in highschools full of teenage hormones. Because students are still being distracted in early coed educational systems, the first attack falls.
2.) My opponent again brings up my source with the quote "There are many students, who maintain their social connections and still are able to concentrate in a coed school, it really just depends on the individual child", and I am not denying this. However, my stance was not that every single student is distracted by the opposite sex, simply that the distraction occurs. After all, as it stated in my second source (that my opponent has used as well) "However, as already mentioned, some students find it more difficult to focus on academics at co-ed schools. After all, it’s hard to listen to your professor’s lecture when you’re constantly looking at that cute classmate across the aisle!" Although I myself have been distracted by certain... assets, I'm not constantly distracted. However, I have also seen students whose entire school day revolves around trying to impress women. Occasionally, that's even more distracting than the women themselves :P. However, in a Single-Sex evironment, all traces of this distraction cease to exist. There is no way to refute that the distraction of opposite sexes will be stopped with seperate schools, and so because the distraction does not exist in Single-Sex schools, this attack fails
3.) This claim revolves around the lack of male-female interaction in school and so the kidsd will not be able to cope in the workplace. He did this once again by using my own source against me, as it's on the Pros and Cons of Same-Sex and Coed education. However, as it says in this same source, just because there are no members of the opposite sex, it doesn't mean that there will be no male-female interaction. Some Schools even provide transportation to female single-sex schools for parties and as it said, " you’ll have people of every sex just outside the campus gates". This means that there are still members of the opposite sex in the city that students can and do interact with on a regular basis, and so it doesn't mean the two don't interact. Because Single-Sex schools don't impede on a studen'ts interaction with the opposite sex, this attack fails.
My opponent attacks this contention with 1.) the claim that students who go to Single-Sex schools are better students anyway, 2.) I don't give a warrant for why Single-Sex schools are better, and 3.) Students in Single-Sex schools don't get the neccesary female interaction.
1.) My opponent claims that this attack negates my entire contention. However, he forgets what the resolution states. It states that "Single-Sex education system is better than a co-ed system". We're not arguing that both school systems are of equal quality, simiply that one is "Greater in excelence or higher in quality" than the other. The fact that my opponent agrees that the education is more rigorous and students perform better, the resolution is affirmed and the attack does not count against me.
2.) Actually, the both of us provide reasons why it's better. I proposed that it was due to less distractions in school (which my opponent couldn't succeed in refuting) and he proposed that they have a more rigorous academic curriculum.
As we have both provided reasons why Single-Sex schools are better, this attack fails.
3.) Cross-apply my argument made in defense of C1 as they both deal with the same thing.
I had a bit of trouble discerning my opponent's arguments in this contention, but I believe they revolve around 1.) Female teachers don't make a difference between schools, 2.) Female administration doesn't make one side better than the other because they should have the same ratio, and 3.) Boys are better in math.
1.) The point of the contention was not neccesarily that Female teachers provide problems, simply that with a majority of female teachers, the more highly-energetic male population is often misunderstood and mistaken for troublemakers. Because of this they are put on medication, held back, and put in detention simply for acting like they are biologically supposed to. Furthermore, this abundance of Female teachers brings a lack of masculine role models, bringing about more misunderstanding about how Boys are supposed to act. "the male teacher as role model is invested with a particular masculinizing capacity considered necessary to counteract the feminization and emasculating effects of schooling on boys’ failing masculinities (Skelton, 2002; Martino, 2004) within such a context of a moral panic and public anxiety about the problem of failing boys (Weaver-Hightower, 2003; Titus, 2004)" Thus, because boys misunderstood and have a much higher drop out rate due to role models who don't understand how boys act at an early age, their needs are not being met by the coed educational system and this attack fails.
2.) In a Single-Sex school, females wouldn't have much of a difference in a female school. However, in male schools, even with a similar ratio, females teaching at an all-male school would have the training to know how young boys act and should be able to teach accordingly. However, in an Coed school, this training is not available and they would have to treat both boys and girls equally, even though their learning styles and behavioral issues are different. Because female teachers at a Single-Sex school would have the training to deal with that sex, this attack fails.
3.) This attack really doesn't have any weight as even though different educational styles are brought into question, whether or not boys are any better in math doesn't really matter. Because this attack doesn't have any effect on the contention, this attack fails.
Because my opponent has not presented his own arguments, all I need to do is refute the rebuttals against my own arguments. Because I have succesfully done this, Vote Pro :)
I thank my opponent for his prompt answer. In fact, I don't have many time because of school and some issues at home. But hopefully I have found time to answer. It takes me much longer to write it because I have problems to express right. For the problem of not providing my arguments, I stated at the beginning that "3. Con refute" but I'll follow decorum and I'll provide my own arguments.
I'll begin with negotiating your arguments.
My opponent knew that if I his arguments I would win thus He tries to refute all my arguments.
1.) Pro claims that students are still being distracted in early coed systems. But He admit that the level of distraction is not based on being in class with opposite-sex. I admit that in early education there is still minor distraction BUT not caused by being in class with opposite-sex. Hence his argument is invalid because this doesn't make single-sex education system better than Co-ed.
2.)In this case my opponent resolves my argument bad way. Just to repeat it: I brought up this quote: "There are many students, who maintain their social connections and still are able to concentrate in a coed school, it really just depends on the individual child". However, my opponent deny this argument by this: "my stance was not that every single student is distracted by the opposite sex" which, as we can read in round 1, he didn't said. So his argument for this issue is invalid. The rest of his argument he stated that entire school day revolves around trying to impress women. I don't want to deny this statement because there is no way to disprove it but this action they conduct freely, no one push them to impress women. Therefore there is possibility to study instead of impress women. It depends only on each man whether he wants to impress woman or not. Hence there is option to either study or seeking for new life-partner. In addition, according to studies  girls are much intelligent than boys at school. This exactly can engage boys to study more to catch women up in grades.
3.)Pro associate study at school with life beyond it. I can't deny that students who study at single-sex schools don't meet opposite-sex everyday. They talk to their mother/father via skype, they talk to salesperson etc. In fact this isn't
interacting professionally as students require. They also lack in ability to understand each other which enhance negative future interactions among them. and I doubt they spend all-days interacting with opposite-sex instead of studying. This attack fails.
This entire Contention claimed by Pro appears to me as bad based on my arguments and I think He didn't grasp my argumentation right.
1.) I'll begin with quote of my own: "these schools tend to be more academically rigorous, and the students who attend them are strong learners already." You claim you We already affirm that "the education is more rigorous and students perform better". Since you already presented proofs that students in single-sex schools perform better I had to refute your argument which I did. You chose passages from my argument and join them without any logical meaning. I'll repeat myself again and please read it thoroughly. Round 2 Con: "students who attend them(Single-sex schools) are strong learners already". This means that students who attend these schools study good already. If they would attend Co-ed school they would study good here as well. So your argument that Single-sex schools are much better is INVALID. An the end of my claim: "The students choose those school just for reason that single-sex schools are more serious, difficult, and wealthier. Thus they tuition is much bigger. But this schools don't give a student an experience in field of working with opposite-sex. This only co-ed schools can provide."
2.)This is completely ridiculous statement which I disproved in prior argument. I urge Pro to read thoroughly.
3.)Relates to Contention 1 point 2
1.) This issue isn't problem in country where I live. But I agree with point that boys are misunderstood. I didn't grasp why this issue is strictly Co-ed problem. Boys are drop out because they don't meet the requirements. Imagine 2 schools one is Co-ed and the other Single sex, they have same study plan and have same teachers(only female). I don't think that the system will make males misunderstood. The point is that if we use same teachers it will have the same effect on boys. It depend only on teachers. Thus Pro's argument is invalid.
2.) This claim is connected with upper claim of this contention and prove it. But I have some doubts here. For instance, Why should teachers obtain training how to treat boys only on Single sex schools and not on Co-ed? This discrepancy force me to think of veracity of Pro's claim. I urge Pro to bring evidence of this that is claim is true.
3.)In this case pro didn't read my argument thoroughly. He claimed that females study better but I responded that boys are better in math for instance. Therefore Pro attack me rather than argument with me.
Because I have only 2,500 characters remaining I have to present my arguments shortly. I speak in favour of Co-ed school system.
I'll start off my first argument with quotation of the probably best philosopher ever, Plato said that "Co-ed creates a feeling of comradeship." And this is all about. Being, studying, interacting with as many people possible is the best opportunity to gain feeling of comradeship, sense of working in teams etc. Moreover, studying, working with opposite-sex when hormones are raging brings students will create a sense of healthy competition among them. They will work as hard as possible just for the reason of being better than one from opposite-sex.
In terms of finance, Co-ed is much better. Students don't need to be separated thus there are no money needed to pay extra teachers and separate schools. It helps to make easier nowadays economical crisis.
There were ideas that boys are gross in presence of girls. In fact, they are not at all. They behave more decent, polite. Just image that you are in classroom and your favourite girl would come. I guess most of boys would stop doing such a impolite things and mellowed down just for the reason to impress her. In single-sex school there is more chance of being bullied. Why? Mainly because of the lack of sex-counterparts. The link describes about women being bullied. Women don't bully each other because being in classroom with men add them another problematic factor.
The most important factor which I mentioned earlier, besides competition among opposite-sex, finance, polite behavior, is that they learn how to work together in further life. This is exactly the key why to choose Co-ed school. Boys and girls remove their shyness and work easily in further life. This is the most important point why people from single-sex schools have big problems to work with their counter-partners. As Plato said "co-education creates comradeship".
In the articles above I have disproved my opponent claims. I have added to his pleasure my arguments. My arguments stands on cooperation boys with girls which is by the way the most important and ancient cooperation ever. I don't want to persuade anyone to vote me. Vote the best one
I waited as long as I could to make this fairer to my opponent, but this is as long as I can wait while still being safe. As my opponent just now added his constructive speech, I'll defend mine first (since all I need to do is keep it standing) and if I have enough text left I'll negate his. Also, I never stated that he had to provide his own, I'm simply stating that as he didn't, all I have to do is negate refutations.
1.) My opponent claims that I state distraction in the class room is not based on the opposite sexes, however, that was the main point in the first contention (As I stated: These distractions lead to less attention on schoolwork or student participation in classes as students of one sex are trying to impress or date students of the opposite sex, especially with males." ), I simply stated that this distraction between the opposite sexes is not solely based on sexual lust. He goes on to state that although there is distraction in early educational classrooms, it's not provided by the opposite sex. However, not only does this completely go against the source we both cited , but he does not back this up with any actual evidence. Because he's basing this argument off idle speculation, misquoting of my arguments, and contradicting his own sources, he loses the "1.)" debate, and it shows why Coed schooling is worse than Single Sex,and thus shows that Single Sex schools are better.
2.) The first half of this argument states that because I didn't specifically say that every last student in a coed school system will be destracted that it means I was arguing for that point. This is incredibly flawed, because this is only based on my opponent's accusations and no real logic. I never claimed that all students were distracted either, according to my opponent's argument that means I wasn't arguing that all students were distracted by the opposite sex. However, this would mean that I wasn't arguing for either side, which is impossible, and why my opponent's argument is flawed. Because the statement that I'm arguing every last student will be distracted is flawed, you cannot look to that argument. "It depends only on each man whether he wants to impress woman or not. Hence there is option to either study or seeking for new life-partner." This sentence can sum up the second argument my opponent made. He stated that the choice is there for the students to either try to impress the opposite sex or study, and they just chose to impress. However, this confirms my entire argument. I stated that they are distracted from their studies by the opposite sex, and as my opponent just confirmed this in his own words, the entire first contention is proven true. He then brings up the fact that women are better at school, which is completely irrelevant to the debate.
3.) My opponent says that this aspect of the argument fails because they don't interact with women all day long. However, teenagers still have jobs (so they know how to work professionally with women), people still talk outside of school (which my opponnent agrees to), and even as my opponent shows they can interact with their opposite-sex parent. The belief that a student at a single-sex school won't be able to interact with a person of another sex is false as they can interact, both professionally and casually, through the world outside of school.
1.) My opponent tries to rebut this simply by repeatedly bringing up the same quote, that the students already perform better. I'll assume this means my opponent is unlcear about my arguments. I'll restate them in two points for more clear reading. 1a.) The argument is that the schools are better (and by the definitions it means that they are higher quality) than coed schools. The Con stating that the students there are better academically only reinforces the belief that they acheive a higher grade of excellence, and so it proves the resolution true. 1b.) The rest of his argument is dealing either with the financial expense or with arguments he already brought up in contention 1. Financial expenses do not impact quality in any way (which is what we're debating, check the definitions), and so this argument does not impact the resolution.
2.) My opponent doesn't attempt to refute this. he says he already did, but he doesn't say why or how it was negated, nor how it was rediculous. As he's clearly dodging the attack, extend my previous argument, it extends.
3.) I already negated C1 Sp2, so go ahead and extend this one as well.
1.) My opponent tries to negate this by simply saying that doesn't "think" they are misunderstood. However, I have provided an actual source (, if you want to check it again) that proves this happens. Unless we actually allow idle speculation from an untrained source refute entire studies now, this cannot be considered an accurate refutation. He completely drops the point that teachers at an all-boys school would be trained to know about and handle the healthy habits of young boys, and so that also refutes his second atack against Sp1. Because he is trying to overturn an actual source with idle speculation, and because he dropped the part of my argument that deals with the teachers, this attack is negated.
2.) I'm not saying that they should, I'm saying that they don't in coed schools.. As for the source, check sources #3 and #4, as I've brought up in previous arguments, which shows how current teachers do not understand boys needs and how it leads to misunderstanding and negative effects for the boys. As I've already shown the evidence, and my opponent misunderstood what I was saying, my previous point extends.
3.) Yes, they do study differently, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. If anything, it benefits my side because single sex schools would be able to promote the specific tendencies of each gender rather than lump them in the same school where they have to learn the same way. Because my opponent dropped this point, extend it.
my opponent's argument
I only have a little over 1000 characters left, so I'll make this quick.
1.) This really doesn't have anything to do with the resolution and is more on a personal point, but Plato wasn't the best ever :) If anyone is, it would be Plato's teacher Socrates, and I personally believe that Aristotle's philosophy was much better than that of Plato.
2.) My opponent's quote Plato quote is completely unsourced so we cannot assume it was true. It doesn't sound anything like his writings or even a direct quote. Because this quote likely didn't come from plato, we must ignore it
3.) Most of this argument has to do with interacting with the opposite sex, so I don't see why it's brought up again. Just cross-apply my arguments about it from my case (I believe it was C1).
Finance has nothing to do with the degree of excellence at a school. If anything, paying more for a better education would reflect the higher quality of Single-Sex. Because it has nothing to do with the resolution, you must ignore this argument as it has no impact.
1.) First my opponent tries to refute that distractions will arise from early educational systems because his source says that coed education is the miracle cure. However, this source looks more like a blog than a study, and it has no scientific source or background behind it. It appears to be highly opinionated rather than opinion based. It states that inter-sex bullying will not occur at all, which all of who have been to school know is completely untrue. Because you cannot trust the source, ignore this argument.
Unfortunately I don't have enough characters left ro refute
I thank very much for waiting so long. I had to leave for school trip. My opponent deserves admiration for this that He didn't act cowardly. As for the problem of my own arguments, you appeared that you want to use it as advantage against me so I added this to my speech. I'll follow your format of arguments, first your and then mine.
1.) My opponent stated 1 argument here. He said that " distraction between the opposite sexes is not solely based on sexual lust". The rest was investigating my arguments by disproving my proofs. So I'll start with the first point. As far I remember we were arguing about children who didn't reach high school. But my opponent confused this topic. I brought up argument that children who didn't reach high school aren't distracted until they are older. That argument I've supported by link from same website like my opponent used. Furthermore, I didn't state that distractions are based on sexual lust. For supporting this claim I bring this quote from my first argument: "Thus students aren't distracted until they reach puberty (age around 12-13)". So there is no distraction at all. Pro pointed out statement which I didn't state. Hence I didn't base off any idle speculation contradicted my own sources and my argument that Single sex schools are for very young students totally useless.
2.) Pro claimed two arguments here. His first claim was built on that argument that He never claimed that all students are distracted by opposite sex: "I wasn't arguing that all students were distracted by the opposite sex." I would like to share his own argument which he brought up in round 2: "My opponent again brings up my source with the quote "There are many students, who maintain their social connections and still are able to concentrate in a coed school, it really just depends on the individual child", and I am not denying this." My opponent is contradicting himself. My opponent can't defend his claim well and make mistakes. In the latter argument Pro didn't contradict himself but instead of giving proofs He used my argument against me. My task is prevent him from it. I must say he got into deep water. At the beginning I already stated that sex distraction is in co-ed schools: "So in general the distraction in Co-ed schools depends on individuals." So I already said that before. It just proves that my opponent is trying to gather any advantage because there are not the crucial. All people who read this are sure that sex distraction is in co-ed schools. Claiming that it's not would be critical fail for me. But on the other hand Co-ed schools are good for their variety and scope of possibilities. Imagine yourself at Co-ed school do you prefer having good grades or fun, do you want to fall in love as teenager. These are the consequences why Co-ed schools are better. Few advantages can cover one disadvantage.
3.) First of all I didn't stated they don't interact all day long. My claim was that they don't interact professionally on job level. The school in general is institution where children learn how to socialize. Single sex schools make gab in this learning. Moreover in future life they can't interact well in job etc. Pro's claim that they get job during school is invalid. Only summer job can give some experience but it is minimal compared to tremendous amount which they learn at school. Neither interacting with parents nor salesclerk can learn how to socialize with opposite-sex because in these situation their social position are others. Learning how to socialize with opposite-sex is the key advantage of Co-ed schools.
1.) In this argument we've got into blind alley. Pro speaks about quality of school. But in this contention we are not talking about "the quality between Coed schools and single-sex schools". I'll quote topic of this contention in Round 1 which Pro presented: "Single-sex students perform better than coed students." This actually proves that talking about
quality of students not about quality of schools. I still stand up for argument that students who attend Single-sex schools are already good students. Furthermore the ratio is increased by the fact that "many single-sex schools will swiftly transfer out poorly-performing students, thus artificially boosting graduation and college acceptance rates."
The rest Pro's argument was about Financial expenses which I suppose related to "Thus they tuition is much bigger". I didn't mean to highlight it as argument just as outcome of the reason why single-sex schools are wealthy.
2.)Well I considered that as useless answer from your side so I reacted this way to your only argument in round 2 which didn't bring any argument as well. At the end I linked on the first paragraph where I refute your argument that "it was due to less distractions in school". Your goal was just to use my arguments against me. In which you obviously failed.
3.)This argument Pro and I resolved in C1 Sp2. There is no any point to talk about it here.
1.) I've read the whole actual source which Pro brought up. Honestly, there is no fact that boys are misunderstood. The only point in favour of Pro is that boys are ill-prepared or disinterested. Merriam-webster says: misunderstand= to fail to understand. Thus I didn't find any evidence that boys are misunderstood by teachers or principals. That article doesn't offer any solution of this problem or cause.
My speculation which Pro named as "idle" is logically based there is no reason why to call it "idle. It just supports my argument.
In the end I urge Pro to bring evidence of his evidence: "teachers at an all-boys school would be trained to know about and handle the healthy habits of young boys". I assume that this is just as proposal because Pro used words "would be" which is not linked with what in general is. Since Pro presents only proposals his argument is invalid.
2.) I have already answer this upper. In that source Pro provided there was any mention of word "misunderstand". Boys simply don't like school and don't want to study. Girls pay attention more longer than boys. This is a matter of boys fancy to study rather than misunderstanding of boys. I again ask Pro for bringing evidence that teachers are taught how to teach, understand boys at school in single-sex schools.
3.)I am happy that Pro admitted that boys and girls study differently. In republic high schools are divided into schools which are specialized in Biology, chemistry, math etc and they are coed. In our case boys can choose math and girls language schools. In that case Pro's argument is invalid.
I have 1000 characters remaining as well so I need to be brief too.
1.) I like Plato more because He has built origins of constitution and republic
2.) I didn't find that quote in any of his books, writings but in this website. Since it is on confident website I suppose it is true
3.)I've brought it up because it is one of the most advantages of Coed system. If I want to present my arguments for Coed system I have to bring this up.
Yes Finance has to do nothing with degree of excellence at a school. But single-sex schools have to be paid more for teaching boys and girls separately.
The source is from teachers network. Writer is teacher so he/she has experience from that field. It includes quotes from department of education, researchers everything what serious text need. I am sorry that I can't support my arguments more but no characters remaining. Thanks for this debate and good luck.
TheOrator forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: forfiet
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.