The Instigator
AndrewB686
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
JRRS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Single-sex 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 1 vote the winner is...
AndrewB686
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,717 times Debate No: 42630
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

AndrewB686

Con

This opening round is for definitions, acceptance, and a brief outline of contentions only.

I'm looking forward to a good debate.

Rules

Standard debate conventions apply. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:

DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.

DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 10,000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.

DR 3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate.

DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence or make new arguments in R4. R4 is for summarizing the debate and pointing out merits and deficiencies of the arguments rather than introducing new contentions.

DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.

My Position

  • Single-sex education hinders the development of social interaction between juvenile boys and girls
  • Indicative of the primeval and antiquated system of education that asymmetrically favored males
  • Emotionally detrimental to young males in particular

Definitions

Single-sex education-institutions that admit members of one sex only; not coeducational[1]

Antiquated-to make obsolete, old-fashioned, or out of date by replacing with something newer or better[2]

Primeval-ancient and original: at or from the ancient original stages in the development of something; primitive, or arising from instinct rather than thought[3]

Detrimental-harmful; causing damage, harm, or disadvantage[4]

[1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3]http://www.bing.com...

[4]http://www.bing.com...

JRRS

Pro

Hi there, I'm also looking forward to a good debate.

I accept your challenge and your rules.

I defend single-sex education because:

1- Students from single-sex schools are better academically than mixed-sex schools
2- Students from single-sex schools don't have any sociability problem
3- I study in a single-sex school and I'm more sociable since then than when I studied in mixed-sex schools(personal argument)

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AndrewB686

Con

  • Single-sex education hinders the development of social interaction between juvenile boys and girls


    • During the developmental years of the average teenager, intergender interactions are a necessity. Not only for gradual progression into a sociable individual, but also for achieving the happiness that accompanies a healthy relationship.


    • As with most abilities, it will be easier to develop knowledge of the other sex at a young age. By segregating the two sexes into opposing institutions, the children are deprived of the opportunity to interact with the other sex on a regular basis.


    • The result of this is unfamiliarity. Men and women are forced to gain understanding and knowledge concerning how to converse with the other sex later in life. By that point, they have have been thrust into a scenario, say a workplace, where collaboration between sexes is required. Unfamiliarity is a therefore a hinderance.


    • Dr. Alan Smithers, a respected British schools expert and the professor of Education at Buckingham University, declared in a 2006 report that


      • “distraction by boys was a myth’ and that ‘half a century of research has not shown any dramatic or consistent advantages for single-sex education for boys or girls.”[1]


      • “In Hong Kong, where 10 per cent of schools are single-sex, girls appeared to do better. But in Belgium, where co-educational schools are in the minority, boys and girls who study together get the best results. He highlighted the fact that 40 per cent of people who had a single-sex education wanted their children to go to a co-educational school.”[1]


    • The above three quotes highlight another point that I am attempting to make. Not only do they hinder growth with respect to social skills; they also do not create a more effective and conducive learning environment. The number of single-sex state schools has fallen from nearly 2,500 to just over 400 in 40 years. In Scotland co-educational schools that separated students into single-sex classes did not improve the success rates of the boys.[1]


    • Fundamental differences exist in both sexes. Girls typically focus better, while boys desire change more frequently. While girls may achieve greater educational success; they do not attain any skills with boys. While boys typically suffer in a single-sex environment, they also lose the ability to gain an understanding of girls.


  • Indicative of the primeval and antiquated system of education that asymmetrically favored males


    • Previous centuries and civilizations predominantly favored men. Education was a premium that only the wealthy could afford. Aristocrats and the nobility placed their boys into the most fortunate position available in order for the family lineage to continue down the path of wealth and prestige.


    • By segregating genders, one runs the risk of devaluing the education of either boys or girls due to the differences in the education received. The classes that are taught best in a single-sex environment can be easily integrated into a co-educational system. By separating genders, the schooling each one receives isn’t guaranteed to be same, as it would be if both were incorporated.


    • I’m currently unable to access the source I used to obtain the above information. I will provide the source and extra, more specific information in the next round.


      • "We know from the history of our country that separate is not equal," said Liben. "There's no reason to divide along the lines of biological sex."[3]


    • Title 9 of the U.S. Education Amendments prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in institutions that are federally funded. The above quote remains specifically applicable to the United States. Classes such as home economics and metal shop are typically single-sex in nature; however continuing single-sex education in this form directly violates this statute.[3]


  • Emotionally detrimental to young males in particular


    • Men are at an extreme disadvantage when placed in a single-sex environment. Past experiments and research have shown that males struggle academically in an all-male system. They are more prone to gender stereotypes as a result of unfamiliarity with the opposite sex; therefore, no females would exist to abolish the stereotype. Thus the misconception perpetuates itself.[3]


      • “The report also cited a 2010 study which compared two preschool classes. In one class, the teacher used gender-specific language to address the children. The other teacher did not. After just two weeks, the researchers reported that children who had the teacher using sex-specific language played less with children of the other sex. The kids also showed an increase in gender-specific stereotypes (i.e. boys played with trucks, girls with dolls).”[3]


    • The above quote exemplifies points 1 and 3. Not only do young children learn less information, they also don’t operate as well with the opposite sex than they would in a co-educational setting.


    • Lynn Liben, professor of psychology and education at Penn State and co-author of the study conducted. The third and fourth statements below are excerpts from the report.


      • men educated in single-sex schools are more likely to “face divorce and depression by their early 40s.”[2]


      • “boys brought up in a single-sex environment are less able to relate to the oppositesex than those taught in a co-educational school.”[2]


      • "There's really no good evidence that single-sex schools are in any way academically superior, but there is evidence of a negative impact,"[3]


      • "Kids' own occupational aspirations are going to be limited, and there could be long-term consequences where, for example, girls are used to being in roles only among other girls, then they have to face the real world where that's not the case." [3]


    • The above applies to not just boys, but also to girls. It also correlates with point 1. The emotional and social aspects of children are not properly developed and, in conjunction with that pitfall, the children do not receive a substantially better education. Men are at the greatest disadvantage as the above quote referring to divorce and depression elucidates explicitly. Unfamiliarity again reappears in the second quote from the second source. Indeed it appears boys suffer significantly worse than girls.


Sources


That concludes my arguments for the time being. I look forward to hearing my opponent’s contentions and subsequent rebuttals. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. Best of luck to you in the future.

JRRS

Pro

1- Students from single-sex schools are better academically than mixed-sex schools

The first reason for that is the environment in which students are inserted. A study made by two professors, Lea Hubbard (University of San Diego) and Amanda Datnow (University of Southern California), entitled "Do Single-Sex Schools Improve the Education of Low-Income and Minority Students? An Investigation of California's Public Single-Gender Academies" shows the students opinions relative to the single sex school environment. A boy stated:

"When there's girls in here, there's gonna be less learning and, you know, there's gonna be more distractions' cause, look, when I'm sitting right here... and a fine girl walks in, then I'm gonna turn around and start messing with them."(1)

The teachers also noticed how the students behaved differently in the setting:

"Several teachers also commented that the setting made certain actions unlikely. When boys did not have girls present, they felt less need to show off, act out, or engage in attention-getting behavior. Likewise, girls who did not have boys present did not have to vie for their attention. Instead of competing with each other, girls learned to work collaboratively, bond as friends, and became more focused on their academic work."(2)

My point is, without the presence of the opposite sex, students are more able to concentrate on their academics.

Another study that supports my argument is "Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review", made by the US department of Education. It has researches from all over the world about single sex/cooed education. On All-Subject Achievement Test Scores, which "have been defined as scores indicating the composite mastery of specific skills or scholastic content areas (i.e., mathematics, verbal, science, etc.) acquired over a restricted span of time", shows that, of the nine studies examined, six reported results supporting single sex schools while only one reported results supporting coeducational schools.(I was not able to copy/paste the tables from this study. Please understand and forgive me.)

Other subject is Self-Concept, which can be defined as “the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence”. Of seven studies, 4 reported results favoring single-sex schooling and the other 3 reported null results(indifferent). That means that SS schools have a better environment which favours the intellectuality of their students.(3)

The study also shows that it is less likely to people who went to SS schools to be unemployed. Because of the better academics they will be the best professionals to be hired and hardly will be unemployed.

Even though there were a lot of null results in this study, the results favoring single-sex educational were in most cases higher than the favoring coeducation.


2- Students from single-sex schools don't have any sociability problem

Again I will use the same studies from the past argument and state that the environment whereupon the students are inserted does not cause any problem.

In my preview argument, I showed teachers from a study stating that the environment from single sex schools was beneficial for both girls and boys academically and socially.

Although some researches favours CE schools on Self-Esteem, the US department studies also shows that SS schools students have higher Educational and Career Aspirations. This shows, at some, point, that students from SS schools have a high self-esteem. They know they can be at the top of their careers, they know they can be the best, and most of all, they want it. (3)

The study shows other researches showing that Delinquency is lower on SS school students. This does not mean that CE schools student are more delinquent than SS, just shows that they have an environment less favourable to develop a delinquent. As stated before, the lack of the opposite sex favours friendship over competition between the classmates. Boys won't be fighting for a girls won't be doing crazy things for a boy's love. (3)

Girls in SS schools recognize better their role in society as Working Women than girls in CE schools. And the result for boys is the same, both for SS and CE schools. This ends the myth about the machismo in SS boy schools.(3)

One research also showed that CE girls are more likely to have Eating Disorders. CE school girls need to be "hot" for their male classmates and sometimes they think their is a necessity to be thiner, while in SS girl schools don't have this problem.(3)

Another research from the study also shows that girls from SS schools statistically choose College Majors which are gender-mixed rather than predominantly female more than girls CE schools.(3)

On Sex role Stereotyping on girls only, one study favoured SS schooling and the other one favoured CE schooling, showing that NO, SS schooling does not creates in the students mind a stereotype for their work environment.(3)

The other study showed how girls felt more comfortable in a SS school than in a CE school. An interesting point of view was this one:

"You can come like in the morning.. and you don't have to put like make up on because we're girls and if there were guys here...[We would be thinking],'Oh my god, I can't go like this."(4)

This comproves that social stereotypes, especially with women, are less likely to happen in SS schools than in CE schools.

3- Personal argument

As I stated in round 1, I study in a SS school. There is no problem at all with me or with my friends. We don't stereotype women, some of my friends have or had girlfriends, and it has a different climate or environment from the one in CE schools. This was the first school I felt I fitted in. An only male or female environment makes it easier for you to bond with other people, to make new friends. And academically, my school is considered the best one in Brazil(I'm Brazilian).(5)

Sources:

1http://www.jstor.org...

2 idem

3 http://files.eric.ed.gov...

4http://www.jstor.org...

5 http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AndrewB686

Con

This round I will form rebuttals and counterarguments to my opponent’s contentions. Thank you for presenting your arguments. I will do my best to accurately represent them while avoiding a straw man.


1. Students from single-sex schools are better academically than mixed-sex schools

  • "Do Single-Sex Schools Improve the Education of Low-Income and Minority Students? An Investigation of California's Public Single-Gender Academies"

    • The title of that article already throws up a red flag. I try to avoid bias and remain as objective as possible; however, with respect to this situation, it appears the education pool has already been greatly diminished.


    • The vast majority of single-sex institutions are private, and therefore the tuition is exponentially high for a low-income or minority student.


      • “In the 2009-2010 school year, according to the National Association of Independent Schools, or NAIS, the average tuition at day private high schools stood at $19,906 a year, while boarding schools averaged $40,875. The tuition is even higher for the most elite prep schools.”[1]


1

$11,490

2

$15,510

3

$19,530

4

$23,550

5

$27,570

6

$31,590

7

$35,610

8

$39,630

      • [2]


  • "Several teachers also commented that the setting made certain actions unlikely. When boys did not have girls present, they felt less need to show off, act out, or engage in attention-getting behavior. Likewise, girls who did not have boys present did not have to vie for their attention. Instead of competing with each other, girls learned to work collaboratively, bond as friends, and became more focused on their academic work."


    • This statement entirely ignores the necessary growth and development of the child with respect to social skills. The whole paradigm of boy-girl relationships is tantamount to the interactions of men and women in their later years.


    • This statement is also from the perspective of the teacher, not the student. Observation is a flawed skill, and cannot accurately represent the students true intentions or emotions.


    • Also, cooperation is not restricted to single-sex education. The point of intersex cooperation also needs to be mentioned. Cooperation among one’s own sex can easily be achieved through segregation in a co-educational setting; however, the converse cannot, in a single-sex institution the “cooperation” is limited by its very nature.


  • For the remainder your argument not much needs to be said. You are committing a false cause fallacy by assuming because the test scores are higher, it must be the result of the lack of the opposite sex. In reality, the selectivity results in the demand for higher education values, thus the teachers typically have prestigious degrees. The achieved result is in the greater attainment of knowledge. This is not due to separation of sexes.


2. Students from single-sex schools don't have any sociability problem

  • Due to time restraints, I will have to keep this short. I already referenced social ability in my previous rebuttal; however, I will expound upon it in short.


  • Self-Esteem and Educational and Career Aspirations are used to describe SS students; however, I again assert that this is a result of private education, not a result of single-sex education.


    • The study shows other researches showing that Delinquency is lower on SS school students. This does not mean that CE schools student are more delinquent than SS, just shows that they have an environment less favourable to develop a delinquent. As stated before, the lack of the opposite sex favours friendship over competition between the classmates. Boys won't be fighting for a girls won't be doing crazy things for a boy's love.


      • A lack of Delinquency again results from the selectivity and the increase in academic integrity that is a side effect of a prestigious private education.

      • Again forming relationships with the opposite sex is a crucial aspect of youth. “Competition” in this sense may be a good thing, but I also go to a co-educational school, and competition is not an issue, nor are girls constantly “doing crazy things for a boy’s love”.


    • I fail to see how eating disorders are the result of separation of sexes. That appears to be a red herring and therefore possesses no validity in this argument.


      • "You can come like in the morning.. and you don't have to put like make up on because we're girls and if there were guys here...[We would be thinking],'Oh my god, I can't go like this."(4)


        • One girl’s opinion does not accurately represent the whole. Again it seems as if a logical fallacy is at work. A hasty generalization appears to be the case.


  • The American Council for CoEducational Schooling put together a report, The Pseudoscience of Single Sex Schooling, which worked down to break some of the "cherry picked" claims that back same-sex education. In this report, the organization asserted that single-sex education reinforces sex stereotypes, arguing, "Boys who spend more time with other boys become increasingly aggressive," while "girls who spend more time with other girls become more sex-typed." The lead author of the report, Diane Halpern asserts, "It’s simply not true that boys and girls learn differently," reminding readers that "we used to believe that the races learned differently, too."[3]


  • “Although much has been said about the benefits of same-sex schools, not many are touting the benefits of the old standby of coeducation. According to the ACLU, some studies find that students in coeducational schools can do better than single-sex students. And the ACLU is quick to point out that same-sex schools that do well are successful not because they are segregated, but because they have the hallmarks of good educational environments, including small classes, adequate funding, parental involvement, and qualified teachers, which help bring about success in coeducational classrooms as well. The ACLU underlines that socialization, competition, and collaboration between sexes in school prepares students for success in the real world as well, as real life is not separated by gender.”[3]


  • One last thing needs to be said in regards to your personal argument. As I said earlier, I attend a private institution. It is ranked very highly in the United States, where I live, and it operates as a co-educational school.[4]I thought I would throw in a personal argument simply to counteract yours.

Sources


Thank you for taking the time to participate in this debate. I look forward to your rebuttals. Merry Christmas as well.






JRRS

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank Con for his politeness on wishing me a Merry Christmas. I hope he has had a merry Christmas also and would like to wish him a happy new year.

This round I'll also form rebuttals and counterarguments.

Lets start by Sociability

My opponent stated on round 1 that "Single-sex education hinders the development of social interaction between juvenile boys and girls", argumenting that:

"During the developmental years of the average teenager, intergender interactions are a necessity. Not only for gradual progression into a sociable individual, but also for achieving the happiness that accompanies a healthy relationship."

"As with most abilities, it will be easier to develop knowledge of the other sex at a young age. By segregating the two sexes into opposing institutions, the children are deprived of the opportunity to interact with the other sex on a regular basis."

Well, even if that was true, the main goal of schools is not to develop students socially. The main school purpose is to teach. Yes, it should be also a place where the students can interact with each other and make friends, but this comes in second place.

Another common mistake about children going to same-sex schools is that they only have contact with one sex. This is wrong because (a) the student have parents which he lives with and interact with them every day, (b) a boy going to SS school may have a sister or a girl a brother so they would interact with the different sex at home, (c) the student can interact with the other sex doing activities that are not related to the school, like a foreingn language course or a sport and (d) a SS school for boys may have women teachers or a SS school for girls men teachers.

Con also states that SS schools are "Emotionally detrimental to young males". A research made by Dr. Emer Smyth shows that boys in SS schools have a lower self-steem due to the academically competitive environment. SS schools are places where children go primarily to study. Although this might diminish the boys self-steem, they are better prepared academically than boys from CE schools. (1)

And Con also cited: men educated in single-sex schools are more likely to “face divorce and depression by their early 40s.” I saw his source and it doesn't show details about the issue. And how SS school has anything to due with the men's divorce? It does not make any sense.

Although I showed that Career and Educational aspiration are higher among SS school students than those in CE schools, Con states it`s because they are private schools. Well, the study was made with private CE schools an private SS schools. It put both in equity so the factor that changes the self-esteem is not being private or not, but the presence of the opposite sex.(1)

And in round 3 Con shows a report from the American Council for CoEducational Schooling that break some myths about SS schooling. Of course this report will favor CE schooling! They are the American Council for CoEducational Schooling! Therefore, any argument from this report is invalid due to it's lack of neutrality on the issue.

And about sex-stereotyping. I proved on round 2 that girls from SS schools have less stereotype gender role attitudes. As there aren't any boys the girls need to do things which in mixed environment would be considered boyish, like dissecting a frog. They also have favoured preference for subjects considered masculine more than girls from CE schools. And with researches about boys stereotyping there where no difference between CE or SS schools.(1)(2)

Academically

Con tries to diminish the academic superiority from SS schools stating that they have good scores because they are private. Well, there are CE private schools, so why they do not have better scores than SS private schools? Con`s argument doesn't make any sense.

As I stated have previously stated, the SS school environment favours a learning environment more than a social environment. Therefore, students from SS schools study more and have best results than students from CE schools.

“By far, the advantage most often associated with schooling boys and girls separately is that it eliminates distraction. Freed from the worries of impressing the opposite sex, boys and girls can focus on their books”

"Janice Streitmatter studied and compared the results of girls taking physics in a coeducational and single-sex setting. According to Streitmatter (1998) the girls repeatedly asked the teacher questions and used the answers as opportunities for group learning. As a result of the opportunities for increased participation, achievement also improved. In Streitmatter's findings, in the single-sex physics class 87,5% of the girls made an ‘A’ and 12.5% of the girls made a ‘B’; whereas in the coeducational class only 14.3% of the girls made an ‘A’, 14.3% made a ‘B’, and 71.4% made a ‘C’."

"By separating the sexes into different classes or schools, the students would be free of distractions from the opposite sex and would be better able to concentrate on academic pursuits."
(3)

Giving the fact that SS schools favours academic, there is no reason why there shouldn't be more SS public schools. This opportunity should be opened for the disadvantaged ones who can't pay for a good private school. I don't think there should be only SS schools, but if students their are better academically and thus have a better chance in life, why not have more SS schools?

Sources:

1. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr...
2. http://ecap.crc.illinois.edu...
3. http://files.eric.ed.gov...

Debate Round No. 3
AndrewB686

Con

For the final round I will make my rebuttals short, as brevity will be my partner in this last exchange.


“Another common mistake about children going to same-sex schools is that they only have contact with one sex. This is wrong because...”


  • I never said they’re entirely secluded, but a healthy dosage of the opposite sex only benefits sociability. A limited amount of contact can be detrimental, and your supporting claims are not sufficient.


(a) the student have parents which he lives with and interact with them every day


  • That was not what I was referring to when I mentioned communication with the other sex...


(b) a boy going to SS school may have a sister or a girl a brother so they would interact with the different sex at home


  • The sibling is not guaranteed to be of the opposite sex, and, even if it is the opposite sex, they may not be able to cooperate. The possibility also exists that a sibling rivalry may be detrimental, as opposed to beneficial. This point remains insignificant, as only children will not benefit from that form of companionship.


(c) the student can interact with the other sex doing activities that are not related to the school, like a foreingn(sic) language course or a sport


  • Sports are usually single-sex. I don’t know of a sport that allows members of both sexes to participate with one another. I can understand extracurricular activities; however, the majority are achieved through the school. If the school is single-sex, then the clubs and activities still remain single-sex.


(d) a SS school for boys may have women teachers or a SS school for girls men teachers.”


  • Kids rarely interact with teachers. Children, especially at the middle school level, at times have difficulties listening to teachers actually teach, much less strike up a conversation.


“ And how SS school has anything to due with the men's divorce? It does not make any sense.”


  • The article does state that men who have been educated at a single-sex possess a higher percentage of divorce. The attributable reason behind this would be the lack of sociability developed from the segregation of sexes.


“And in round 3 Con shows a report from the American Council for CoEducational Schooling that break some myths about SS schooling. Of course this report will favor CE schooling! They are the American Council for CoEducational Schooling! Therefore, any argument from this report is invalid due to it's lack of neutrality on the issue.”


  • The two quotes you are referencing, I apologize I remain unable to locate the exact link, but they are from the organization’s website. Anyway, they were acted as an epitome of my stance on single-sex education, not necessarily to reinforce anything I had previously stated.

“Con tries to diminish the academic superiority from SS schools stating that they have good scores because they are private. Well, there are CE private schools, so why they do not have better scores than SS private schools? Con`s argument doesn't make any sense.’


  • My personal argument, in a sense, addresses that “supposed” disparity. My school is nationally accredited, as my source explicitly stated. It is not a single-sex school, yet it is private and coeducational. I do not wish to focus the remainder of my rebuttals on this topic, as I have already presented a counterargument in the previous round.


“By far, the advantage most often associated with schooling boys and girls separately is that it eliminates distraction. Freed from the worries of impressing the opposite sex, boys and girls can focus on their books”


"Janice Streitmatter studied and compared the results of girls taking physics in a coeducational and single-sex setting. According to Streitmatter (1998) the girls repeatedly asked the teacher questions and used the answers as opportunities for group learning. As a result of the opportunities for increased participation, achievement also improved. In Streitmatter's findings, in the single-sex physics class 87,5% of the girls made an ‘A’ and 12.5% of the girls made a ‘B’; whereas in the coeducational class only 14.3% of the girls made an ‘A’, 14.3% made a ‘B’, and 71.4% made a ‘C’."


"By separating the sexes into different classes or schools, the students would be free of distractions from the opposite sex and would be better able to concentrate on academic pursuits." (3)


  • Distractions would still exist, with or without the opposite sex. Boys can still be distracted boys, and girls can most definitely still be distracted by girls. With respect to the middle paragraph, other factors are present that distinguish who makes an A and who doesn’t. My previous argument addresses this issue, so I will not rehash old information, as this is the final round and would not wish to instigate any new issues as a result.


You also did not mention my own personal argument, therefore it still remains as a valid point.


In conclusion, I believe coeducational schooling is superior due to the fact that:


  • Single-sex education hinders the development of social interaction between juvenile boys and girls

  • Indicative of the primeval and antiquated system of education that asymmetrically favored males

  • Emotionally detrimental to young males in particular


I thank my opponent for a spirited and enjoyable debate. I wish him luck in his final round, as well as any future debates.
JRRS

Pro

JRRS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AndrewB686 2 years ago
AndrewB686
The link for #3 is incorrect. I apologize I copied the wrong URL.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 2 years ago
Beverlee
AndrewB686JRRSTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is arguing for theory, and Con is arguing for practice. Both ideas have merit, but we Con does a very convincing job arguing that we learn best from practice. This goes for dealing with the opposite gender, as well. Pro uses several sex-role stereotypes in order to argue that these stereotypes do not exist, like saying that boys are too lustful to study with girls in the room, and that girls will do makeup instead of math if we are around boys. (One example) Con also has to get Spelling and Grammar, for his writing which was great.