The Instigator
tylergraham95
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

TUF Video Debate: Single Gender Classrooms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 52285
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

tylergraham95

Con

Thanks bsh1 for the great debate!
;
bsh1

Pro

Please vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Agreed. Thanks... :)
Posted by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
@whiteflame Thank you for the kind words. I think it deserved more votes as well.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Honestly, this deserved way more votes than it got. Both of you were fantastic, and tyler, this decision could just as easily have swung your way. Good luck in the next round, bsh!
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
PRO's first argument that boys and girls learn differently and therefore require single gender classrooms to maximize learning outcomes rests on shaky science. I'm also not exactly sure that boys being boys is sufficient to indicate institutional oppression of girls, in re PRO's second point. PRO, nevertheless, offered a great deal of positive impacts SGC's ostensibly have -framed around the idea that increased scores/numbers/grades/etc. is sufficient to indicate educational improvement. CON missed an opportunity to undercut PRO's arguments in the first cross but introduced the aspect of social skills/interaction to educational criteria -but the idea that all boys/girls who weren't educated in a co-ed environment are unprepared for the "real world" was a bit bold. The idea that SGC reinforce stereotypes, while interesting, just means that an alternative classroom dynamic would be in play (presumably at the expense of masculine girls and effeminate boys), not that that dynamic is necessarily worse or comparable to other problems that exist w/in co-ed classrooms. The argument over whether boys/girls learn differently is a wash, on both sides -but CON's parallel to race differences wasn't compelling. I never quite got, from CON, how increased stereotypes implies lower educational outcomes, either -other than a postulation that boys are deprived of social interaction with the opposite sex, the absence of which leaves children educated in SGCs unprepared for the "real world." Is CON assuming that no other interaction takes place between boys and girls other than that which might take place in the school house? CON's impacts, thus far, just aren't there, much in the same way that his only counter to PRO's voluminous impacts comes in the form of an APA meta-analysis, not how SGC empirics are mostly fluff. What few impacts CON had, PRO mitigated by narrowing his BOP to show that 'some' would benefit from SGC, not all, and that PRO does not have to show improvement for 'all'
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Admittedly, this LD style of debate isn't one I've ever actually participated in, but I've judged it multiple times, so I figure I'm able to make a reasonable judgment.

I'm going to go through a few of the issues that got major discussion, and then get to the two issues that decided it for me.

Physiological differences:

These really don't have much impact by themselves. They tell us that there are differences in how kids learn, they don't tell us that those differences are fostered correctly in single sex classrooms, something that needs evidence from studies to support it. So while I am buying this from Pro, it's dependent on the later point.

The studies:

I give these to Con, though not by a lot. Pro tells me more about how to evaluate studies, while Con tells me that his study is more broad-based and therefore more effective. I buy both, and I give slightly more weight to a broader study.

Opting out

I would have liked to hear more from Con about this, but I do buy the argument that opting out creates its own set of consequences, since that essentially stigmatizes them (boys as effeminate, girls as masculine). I would have liked to have heard a response to that, but without one, that just makes the opt out system moot, since no one's going to utilize it. Perhaps there's some benefit to the opt out, but the harms of utilizing it nearly equal the benefits.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
So the main two issues I saw as key in the debate were the prejudice point from Pro and the social interaction point from Con. I felt that these were regularly harped on by each of the debaters in turn, and seemed to have the most importance to education as a whole, which is generally accepted as the most essential impact in the debate.

Here's the problem. Both sides dropped the key points in each of these in order to expand on their own, and yet I never got solid impacts from either side, nor a strong weighing mechanism, to evaluate one against the other.

I understand that prejudice badly affects both males and females by providing increased preference to one gender and lower preference to the other, but I don't have a solid idea of what that preference does to a child's mindset and how it specifically alters their outcomes. I get some idea of what this looks like in R1, but Pro doesn't do enough to carry through the impact analysis to his final speech. Those physiological differences does enhance this point, but it isn't a terminal impact, just an expansion of the link story.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I understand that the prospect of children leaving school only learning in one style are effectively going to be handicapped in a world that is not single gender. I also understand that their capacity to interact with those of the opposite gender will be reduced as they won't be forced to interact, but will only achieve the same ends if children make the efforts to interact with those of the opposite sex. I would have liked to hear something about how classes will cause kids to develop single sex cliques, but I still buy that there's enhanced likelihood that they won't interact to any important extent with those of the opposite sex, affecting their ability to enter the world even more. However, I don't get any evaluation of what that change means, and how it will impact their capacity to get a job, form relationships, or even further their education, all of which I can understand would be affected, I just don't know how much.

So I'm left with two sets of arguments that are strong but lack solid voters. I'm forced to make the evaluations of their impacts based on what I consider to be most likely, and what I view as more important between the two. In both cases, these are not the sole mechanisms of harm. Prejudice will continue to exist whether these classrooms exist or not, and concerns with interaction between genders will always exist. However, the concern over prejudice is one that depends on the teachers involved. It requires that teachers regard them differently, which not all teachers will do, and which may persist even in a single sex environment. Meanwhile, social interaction issues will always persist, but a policy like this directly affects the students and their perceptions. It is dependent upon the student, but it's not an effect by proxy. As such, I give this slightly more weight in the debate as it has the stronger link story. Hence, I vote Con.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I'll only post a vote if I end up losing my debate, since that will leave me outside the tournament.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Also, what about the evidence re: teacher's being prejudice against girls which was dropped (my C2, SA and SB).
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
@Raisor, okay, so you grant that I have the biochem offense, but you're just weighing it less heavily?

So, then my question is about South Korea. Con's only in-round rebuttal to this was that it was liable to be impacted by, specifically, comparisons between private schools and non-private schools. I pointed out that the example actually was just about public schools, and had a sample size of 1.6 million students, and therefore as incredibly extensive--which was what Con said was necessary in 2CX in order for such a study to be credible.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
tylergraham95bsh1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
tylergraham95bsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: After rethinking my decision and rewatching the debate, I found that my evaluation was more subjective than it needed to be. Based mainly on evidence, there were two chief methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching, which were supported by both debaters' evidence. Both had shown that test scores are affected, Pro in the short term and Con in the long term, but test scores were generally agreed to be a weak evaluative measure. However, Pro also used matriculation rates. If I had received some response from Con about their usefulness, this probably wouldn't be enough by itself to turn my decision, but as it appears to be a reasonable way to evaluate outcomes, and as it's something immediate and well-supported (at least in some cases), it is enough of an impact for me to pull through the debate more strongly than anything else presented. As such, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
tylergraham95bsh1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments