The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Title IX Does more good harm than good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 8 votes the winner is...
Korashk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,432 times Debate No: 11332
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Resolved that Title IX does more harm than good
Position: Pro
Category: Education
3 rounds
Voting period: 2 weeks
Time to argue: 72 hours
Argument Max: 8,000 characters
Korashk

Con

I thank my opponent for creating the debate and begin with some definitions.

~~~~~~~
Definitions
~~~~~~~

Title IX - An act passed by the federal government that outlaws discrimination based on sex at a federal level.
http://www.dol.gov...

Good - promoting or enhancing well-being.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Harm - the occurrence of a change for the worse.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Equal Opportunity - The right of all persons to be accorded full and equal consideration on the basis of merit, regardless of protected group status.
http://www.kumc.edu...

~~~~~~~
Argument
~~~~~~~

Title IX (XI) does more good than good harm because IX does good by promoting equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is good because it is a concept that works to end discrimination based on factors outside of a person's control such as race, gender and creed. This increased the well-being of women to whom it was allowable to discriminate.

In contrast IX does not do any good harm because good harm is a phrase that is inherently contradicting. A thing can not be both good and harmful. This is of course referring to the act itself, not the consequences of said act. For example torture is a harmful act that can not objectively be classified as good, but the outcomes of torture can lead to good things happening such as the gaining of information that protects the lives of the innocent. A harmful action for the greater good is still a harmful action.

Therefore IX does more good than good harm because it does not do any good harm. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

I'm sorry for the typo and the misunderstanding, in the comments i thought you were talking about the topic, like title IX... but sorry...

Definitions accepted.

To refute my opponent's points:
1) "promotes equal opportunity" this it does, but it does too well, in fact it does it too much. For example if a college has 67 men who want to play sports, and only 47 girls, then that school would have to cut 27 men from their teams! That's equal!
2) I'm sorry again for the typo, please lets just forget it.
----------------Main points
1. TOO equal opportunity
For years, the only way that a university could inoculate itself from Title IX litigation was to have athletic participation mirror enrollment. In other words, if 58 percent of students were women, then 58 percent of athletes had to be women. Universities trying to meet this criterion struggled to attract female athletes. But, all too often, they resorted to the surefire method of balancing the equation: eliminating men's teams. More than 90 universities cut men's track and field, and more than 20 cancelled wrestling. Colleges have cut hundreds of wrestling teams, along with dozens of men's gymnastics, tennis and track and field teams. Men's swimming is also taking a bath. Remember Olympic gold medallist Greg Louganis? He polished his art on the University of Miami's championship swimming and diving team. That team no longer exists. In 1971, the year before Title IX became law, fewer than 300,000 girls participated in high school sports, about 1 in 27.
While women comprise approximately 54 percent of the enrollment in the 832 schools that responded to the NCAA's 1999-2000 Gender Equity Study, they account for only 41 percent of the athletes. This violates Title IX's premise that the ratio of female athletes and male athletes should be roughly equivalent to the overall proportion of female and male students.

I will bring up more agruments in my second speech

-------------------------Sources
http://espn.go.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...
http://www.now.org...
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com...
Korashk

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and will begin with my defense.

~~~~~~
Defense
~~~~~~

///For example if a college has 67 men who want to play sports, and only 47 girls, then that school would have to cut 27 men from their teams! That's equal!///

This statement is misleading, a school does not have to have proportionality when it comes to athletic enrollment to meet IX requirements. That is only one of the three prongs that a school can satisfy. To be in compliance with title IX a school must meet at least one of these three requirements:

1.) Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2.) Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
3.) Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex [&].

Therefore a school does not need to cut athletes to follow IX.
~

///I'm sorry again for the typo, please lets just forget it.///

It is unfortunate that my opponent missed this before posting this debate. He should have looked over the debate overview that is made available before actually posting a debate before simply confirming that everything was to his liking. I will not be dropping this argument.
~

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///1. TOO equal opportunity///
I have effectively refuted this point in my first point of defense by stating that proportionality is not the only way to be in compliance with IX.
~

I look forward to my opponent's response.

[&] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

1. //This statement is misleading, a school does not have to have proportionality when it comes to athletic enrollment to meet IX requirements. . To be in compliance with title IX a school must meet at least one of these three requirements: 1.) Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2.) Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
3.) Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex [&].//

Yes there are three choices, I totally agree, don't get me wrong, but schools TRY those last two tactics, rarely do they work. For example in Pennsylvania 23 programs have been cut, in Washington 14 programs have been cut, in Michigan 17 programs have been cut, in Ohio 25 programs, in New York, 34 programs, in North Carolina 15 programs, and in California 78 programs have been cut! And this data is from 1983! Imagine how many have been cut since then! Add all the states together and there are 460 programs across the country! And this data is from 1983! Imagine how many have been cut since then! It is estimated that this number has tripled! That's 1380 programs that have been cut due to Title IX! In addition to these programs, there have been 170 wrestling programs, 278 baseball programs, and 712 football! Cuts are STILL being made to men's sports! This is insane!

//It is unfortunate that my opponent missed this before posting this debate// I'M SORRY OK? Sheesh..... just let it be....

Conclusion:
My opponent has yet to make some points on why title IX does more GOOD THAN HARM.
My opponent has stated one source, which is wikipedia.

VOTE PRO!
Korashk

Con

I again thank my opponent for his response.

~~~~~~
Rebuttal
~~~~~~

///Yes there are three choices, I totally agree, don't get me wrong, but schools TRY those last two tactics, rarely do they work.///

My opponent states that the other two prongs of compliance rarely work when tried by colleges. This means that they are capable of working. This admittance renders my opponent's argument that to be in compliance with IX a school must cut programs and/or players invalid.
~

Since I have rendered my opponents only argument invalid, shown that Title IX is good because it promotes equal opportunity, and my opponent has not put forth a shred of evidence in support of the resolution that Title IX does more 'good harm' than good I have successfully negated the resolution and urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zGodMode 7 years ago
zGodMode
RFD:
Conduct: Tie
Spelling/Grammar: Con, Pro had more mistakes
Arguments: Con, own up to your mistakes, it isn't his fault you messed up
Sources: Con, Pro's sources were all opinion pieces or didn't give sources for the info.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Changing your vote for the sole purpose of putting yourself in the lead however is not the conduct of a good debater. It is comparable to Acorn voter fraud, if less important of an issue.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
Korask, the president gets to vote for himself, I think this is a bit less official...
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
RFD:
Conduct: Con, Pro is an abusive voter.
Sp/Gr: Con, Pro forgot capitalization, misused the word inoculate, didn't punctuate the last sentence of his round 2 post, and words that are in all caps in round 3
Arguments: Con, profailed to show that Title IX does 'good harm'
Sources: Tie
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Really Rocky, you changed your vote to put yourself ahead because you didn't like that you were losing. That's low.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
nice "straw man" fallacy
Posted by Chief-Examiner 7 years ago
Chief-Examiner
Korashk stated that he would be debating about the mistyped title. Make sure you check your work before posting.
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
that was a good debate, thanks Korashk
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
ACK! The suspense is killing me! POST ALREADY!
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
someting tells me that you'r wrong...
should i have said that?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by zGodMode 7 years ago
zGodMode
RockylightningKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by debateboy 7 years ago
debateboy
RockylightningKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
RockylightningKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningKorashkTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Chief-Examiner 7 years ago
Chief-Examiner
RockylightningKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by xxdarkxx 7 years ago
xxdarkxx
RockylightningKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
RockylightningKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by haxandrew 7 years ago
haxandrew
RockylightningKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51