Sport is not for women
Debate Rounds (5)
When a Woman can run a 10 second sprint get back to me. Its not that Interesting. If you are not aware , most men don't think womans sport means diddly squat apart from looking at that Russian girls legs at Wimbledon.
The politicaly correct continue to force feed the Idea that we are equaly as Interesting on the field of sport , but we are not.
Okay, why don't we examine this debate from first a moral standpoint and then a logical one. The value I am basing my debate on is EQUALITY.
First, the moral standpoint.
Women pretending to be men? No, we're not. Quite honestly, I find it a bit insulting. I am all for diversity. Sure, women are different. That's great. But going so far as banning women from participating? That is not only irrational, but unfair as well. "Separate but equal" was a term coined in the 60s to promote racial segregation. As we know now, this is not fair, equal, or, to put it simply, 'okay.' In fact, going so far as to ban a person from sports due to organs between their legs is both morally reprehensible and an unfair act protected by a thin barrier of "logic". See, statistically speaking, women account for 78% of healthcare works.  But should we ban men from entering this job? Of course not.
Next, why don't we move on to the logical standpoint.
Before I begin, can you provide evidence from your claim that "most men don't think womens sport means diddle squat apart from...". Even if you can provide evidence, WHY does it matter? See, while I understand that men's sports, historically speaking, have brought in more revenue than women's, this is NOT the sole purpose of sports. Like I already mentioned, having superior ability, winning, or sex organs doesn't constitute a valid reason for participating (or not participating) in an activity. Sports can be used to express oneself, to stay physically active, to bond with friends, to have fun in a friendly competition, and even to burn off excess energy. For many, it's even a form of therapy. And who are you to deny women the right to any of these outlets?
Furthermore, you argue against "political correct[ness]". Can you elaborate on this so I can gain a clearer understanding?
Since we are still expected to finish this debate, I'll post a rebuttal to your previous contentions. You argued that (1) women are less competitive than men and (2) sports are not "natural" for women." I'll address both of these.
First, can you please show evidence proving women are less competitive? And can you elaborate on this statement? (I'm assuming you mean sports, right...?)
And before we continue this debate, here is the definition of "sports": an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment ... Let me know if you agree with this term.
Now, moving on to your second contention involving gladiators and the "not of their nature" bit.
So, are you aware there were, in fact, matriarchal societies in which women were the dominant gender? (ie- they were the hunters, fighters, etc.)  And in Sparta, for example, girls and boys excersized unclothed outdoors together. This was seen as not only acceptable, but encouraged as well. While several stigmas of the time were still fairly male-dominated, women still held important roles and were expected to be as physically fit as the men.  And discovered in 1996 and announced in 2000, archaeologists found proof that there were, surprisingly, female gladiators in ancient Rome.  While it's true they didn't gain the respect of men due to the patriarchal society and social stigmas of the time, they did fight and some rose in status due to their fights to the death.
Sport is a replacement for war, hunting and gathering.
Its OK for women to enjoy sport as a spectator as that is how they can Identify the dominant male for breeding purposes. Its seems to be going against evolution to watch female "athletes" battering each other.
Before I begin, I (once again) ask for evidence to support your claims. They mean nothing without proper backing either by scientists, data, acclaimed websites, books, etc. Therefore they are dismissible before we even begin.
I will refute your argument in two parts. One; the "nature and nurture" part and two; identifying the "dominant male for breeding purposes" as well as your arguments regarding evolution.
Fist, nature and nurture.
From what I understand, you are claiming a women's primary role is to nurture the offspring to ensure survival of the species. Although you say this is "the way nature made us", I see no evidence, scientific or otherwise, supporting it. And while I agree that perhaps several thousand years ago, this may have been a mutually beneficial partnership for all sides involved, it is now not only unnecessary, but (like I mentioned in my previous arguments) a grossly chauvinistic viewpoint to take. In our modern society today, there is no reason whatsoever to prevent women from partaking in competitive sports. We live in a word of scientific advancement, extraordinary education, and longer lifespans than ever before.  To assume that because thousands of years ago women played a submissive role in our species that they should continue playing said role is both unrealistic and insulting.
Next, why don't we move onto your arguments involving evolution.
To put it simply, they are irrational at best. Claiming that it goes "against evolution to watch female 'athletes' battering each other" is absurd. The theory of evolution (which, I am assuming we both agree upon) states that natural selection ensures the fittest and best species to survive and prosper due to both external (environment, predators, etc.) and internal (mutations, genetics) factors. I am unsure exactly what you're claiming in this argument. Please provide both clarification and evidence. You further your claim by stating men are the dominant species. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) While I agree they may have the body structure better suited to physical labor, this doesn't prove their dominance. And then you speak of "breeding purposes". Not to be rude, but I'm pretty sure you need a reality check. We live in the 21st century. We have landed on the moon. We can literally learn anything, ANYTHING we want to with a few clicks or a mouse. Breeding purposes really don't apply here. Not only is athleticism becoming less and less of a factor when looking for a "mate", but with the amount of children currently in adoption centers or on the streets, we really don't need any more "breeding."
To sum up: Neither the nurturing argument nor the evolution argument holds any water without proper evidence. Even if they did have evidence, they are both illogical and unrealistic. From a moral and logical standpoint, it is clear that sports are for women.
Ask any neutral who they would pay to watch play sport and I doubt youd find one female in an International top 20.
Its wrong to force a feminist agenda onto sport. Sport is for men and womens participation should be limited to execise and spectating.
I cannot and will not address any of your contentions until proper evidence is procured. I need evidence that the IOC is corrupt, that contact sports are "male preserve", and for your claim involving asking neutrals who they would watch.
Until said evidence is given, your arguments hold no water and therefore are illegitimate.
angryduck forfeited this round.
To recap this debate:
Sports are for men and women equally, due to both equality between the sexes and the very definition of sports itself. Furthermore, neither the "nurturing" argument nor "evolution" argument holds any water, both from a logical and scientific perspective. I proved my position through logical, ethical, and factual means while simultaneously proving my opponent's arguments wrong. Clearly, women have not only the fundamental right to play sports (whether it be purely recreational or competitive) but are also meant to play sports as the equals of men.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro arguments made little sense, pro admitted lazy/unclear and unfinished arguments, as well as forfeit. Con did a good job at refuting all points presented.
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.