The Instigator
Grape
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Women and Contact Sports

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 9 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,943 times Debate No: 14642
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (9)

 

Grape

Pro

Resolved: High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote women’s teams in contact sports, including football and wrestling.

Rules:

1. If a debater forfeits a round, he/she forfeits all 7 points and the debate.
2. It is assumed that males shall also participate in contact sports, the argument that all contact sports should be eliminated is not allowed.
3. No semantics or unreasonable interpretations of the resolution/arguments.
4. No new arguments in the last round.
5. As per my opponent's request, all sources must be posted in the debate.

Introduction:

Young men in the United States have been competing in contact sports for centuries. These sports promote physical fitness and foster an attitude of healthy competition and a drive for success. As I will go into later, there are a huge number of benefits to participating in sports, especially for children and young adults.

Unfortunately, women have limited opportunities to participate in many of the most popular and physically demanding sports. There are virtually no women’s football teams, and females comprise about 2% of high school wrestlers. [1][3] Only a few colleges offer women’s wrestling teams and there are virtually no women’s football teams. [2] This restriction on athletic participation is unjustifiably discriminatory.

The United States has a dismal record on allowing women to participate in sports. As today, most of the justifications for why women were not allowed to participate were based on false assumptions. As a runner, I have read of the example of the women’s 800 meters multiple times. The event was cut from the Olympics until 1960 because of the exhausted state of the finishers. [4] Of course, it is madness to assume that at the end of a race at the Olympic level the finishers wouldn’t be exhausted. Despite restrictions on women’s distance running, it now regularly takes a time close to 1:55 to win an Olympic medal in the women’s 800. The doubts about the physical ability to women to participate in this competition were completely unfounded.

With the following arguments, I think I will be able to prove that the lack of opportunities afforded to women is undesirable, unnecessary, and unacceptable.


Argument One: Sports Benefit Women.

Studies have consistently shown that sports are beneficial to children. They increase self confidence, teach kids life lessons about winning and losing, and require cooperation and social skills. Many sports, especially football and wrestling, have complex rules and require strategic thinking in order to have success. Sports also increase physical fitness, reduce weight problems, and improve body image, especially for girls. [5] Therefore, it is only reasonable the both boys and girls should be encouraged to participate in sports throughout their time in school, and colleges should allow everyone equal opportunities to continue participation in these sports if they offer them.


Argument Two: Sports and Sexism

Football is entirely a male sport, and the players are encouraged from the sidelines by cheerleading squads comprised almost entirely of women. The attitude behind this is exactly what it suggests: males are the performers who participate in the real competition; women may cheer them on from the sidelines but they are never real participants. The glorification of male exploits and the delegation of women to the position of observers send a very overt and very real message about what the social expectations are for men and women. These attitudes are irrational and ultimately reduce the subconscious views that women have for themselves; they can only be harmful and should be challenged rather than encouraged.

The existence of “powder-puff” sports cements this idea. [6] The female substitution of ‘real’ men’s sports is given a silly name and softened-up rules appropriate for those who cannot handle the rigor of a serious competition. However they are played off, these competitions are little more then a mockery of female athletes and the competence of women in general. Athletics should elevate, not insult, the physical prowess of human beings regardless of sex.


Argument Three: Appeal of Women’s Sports

All indicators seem to suggest that participation by women traditionally male dominated sports is increasing. The number of girls participating in high school wrestling has risen dramatically. [1] This participation is no doubt serious decreased by the fact that women do not have their own teams. This places them in constant unfair competition, and some people discourage them from participating because they consider it inappropriate for women to compete with men in contact sports. Both of these problems could be remedied by offering women the opportunity to join female-only teams for these sports. There is good reason to believe that these sports would attract a significant number of participants and rapidly increase in popularity.


Argument Four: Concerns about the Physical Limitations of Women Are Unjustified

If women participate against other women in contact sports, there is no reason to suggest there would be a higher rate of injury than experienced by men in these same sports. Because women are smaller and physically weaker than men, they are less able to cause harm. If anything, women are more physically resilient relative to their size and strength than men. I would suggest that men are more likely to hurt one another in athletic competitions because resistance to injury does not logically scale linearly with strength. [7]

Many of the assumptions about the risks to women posed by these sports assume that they would participate against men. Well, even the fastest woman in the world would not be a serious contender in the men’s 800 meters at the Olympics. That does not mean that women cannot compete against each other in track and field.


Conclusion:

It would be highly beneficial for high schools and colleges to establish programs in contact sports for women and encourage them to participate in these programs. They are known advantages to participating in sports for people of all ages, and it is especially important for children and youths. Treating women on an equal ground in sports is furthermore an extension of an acceptance of women as equal competitors elsewhere in life. Women may not be able to fairly compete against men due to physical differences between the sexes, but their sports should not be treated as below those even of boys in primary school.
RoyLatham

Con

The Resolution

I accept Pro's rules. Pro neglected to define "contact sport," but his examples of football and wrestling should suffice for this debate. Wikipedia gives the definitions http://en.wikipedia.org...

The resolution is that "High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote women’s teams in contact sports, including football and wrestling." So at minimum high schools an colleges are compelled by the resolution to establish women's football teams and women's wrestling teams. This departs from present policy in which each high school and college makes an independent decision as to what women's sports they establish and promote. Whether the school is in Alaska, where winter sports prevail, or Hawaii, where ocean sports are popular, the women should have a football team -- or so Pro contends.

Pro's Contentions Rebutted

Pro gives no reason why tradition, local preferences, and the wishes of the women athletes should be overridden in favor of devoting scarce resources to a women's football team. Pro offers four contentions, but none support the resolution.

Pro begins by reciting past history in which women were prohibited from participation in contact sports. There are currently no such prohibitions, and Pro cited none. If the resolution were that women's contact sports would be permitted, I would support the resolution. That's not the resolution. In fact Pro cites both the existence of women's wrestling and it's increasing popularity. That contradicts his notion that it is prohibited, and it undermines the notion that it cannot prosper without the resolution.

P1. Benefits to women.
Pro contends that sports benefits women. Sure. I agree. So why does that imply that a women's football team should be required. Men's football teams are not required, and Pro is not contending that those men are not benefiting from sports. So why should women's football teams be required?

P2. Sexism. Pro argues that football is perceived as a macho sport. Pro doe not say why having a sport perceived as macho is harmful or how the establishment of a women's football team would cure any such problem. Some sports are considered feminine: synchronized swimming, gymnastic floor exercises performed to music, and gymnastics with apparatus. So, must we compel men's synchronized swimming, and so forth? Other sports like figure skating are perceived as feminine. The women's competitions draw considerably more interest than the men's, despite there being both men's and women's teams. Insofar as such perceptions exist, they do no harm, and having tams for both sexes does not necessarily remedy the perception.

Cheerleading is not currently a sport, but Pro perceives it as a girls' activity. Male cheerleaders have been around for some time, but it hasn't changed Pro's perception.

Sports need not be contact sports to be perceived s macho. Weightlifting is not a contact sport, nor the gymnastics rings competition. If Pro can find something wrong with a mach perception, then his resolution should be directed at macho sports, not contact sports.

I am not arguing that sports perceived masculine or feminine ought to be preserved. My argument is that the decisions ought to be left to the individual schools and the participants.

P3. Participation
. Pro contends that women's participation in traditionally male sports is increasing. So how does that imply that every school should have a women's football team? Schools should respond to the choices of students, not attempt to indoctrinate them to Pro's way of thinking. If participation is increasing then some traditional sports will eventually be dropped and replaced with new sports.

Football is not particularly dangerous, so that is not a relevant concern. "More than half a million people suffered basketball-related injuries last year, compared to 485,000 hurt on bikes and 418,000 injured playing football." http://www.livescience.com...

Negative Contentions


Here are my negative arguments:

N1. There's no reason to prefer contact sports


Contact sports have no advantage over other sports, so there is no reason to promote them. The two most popular school sports in Europe are soccer and gymnastics, and they are so popular that everything else is pretty much an also-ran. http://www.youth-sport.net... The popularity is shared by boys and girls. So is there some compelling reason why rugby ought to be promoted in Europe above their current favorites? Pro has the burden to prove there is something better, or there is no reason to force their establishment and promotion. I see no reason. the Europeans are doing fine without a very popular contact sport.

In the U.S. the most popular boys sports are basketball, football, baseball, track and field, and soccer. For girls it is basketball, soft ball, track and field, volleyball, and soccer. http://www.livestrong.com... Football, the only contact sport, is clearly an oddity in that regard. Four of the five most popular sports are already available and popular with both sexes.

N2. Existing women's sports will have to be dropped to add football and wrestling. Title IX, enacted in 1972, mandates that equal funds be spent on men's and women's sports.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...
—United States Code Section 20,http://en.wikipedia.org...

Funds for athletics are tight, but whatever is available is split equally. About 670 colleges have dropped men's wrestling as a varsity sport. http://www.usawrestlingnation.com... Even though wrestling is a cheap sport, especially compared to football, there are not enough participating men to justify the programs. http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com...

Football remains popular, especially with high school boys. However, football is also suffering from lack of resources, with programs being cut. http://badgerherald.com... More than thirty major schools have downgraded their football programs or dropped it altogether. http://collegefootball.about.com...

If men's wrestling and football are having great difficulties, there is no reasonable chance of them succeeding as women's sports. If the resolution were put into effect, money would be spent in futile efforts to establish and promote women's teams. The only place the money can come from is by discontinuing established popular women's sports. The inevitable result is decreased participation by women in sports. The resolution replaces popular sports with unpopular ones.

N3. Life sports are better. If the resolution is implemented, it would attempt to entrench sports that cannot be played in later life. Sports like golf, tennis, biking, swimming, and softball can be played after leaving school. That provides for long term heath and exercise benefits. If any attempt is to be made to displace established sports, it ought to be done with the long term benefits to the participants in mind. I don't think there should be any general mandate, but there is it ought to be towards life sports. The resolution goes in the wrong direction.

------------

The resolution fails because because schools and athletes should determine what sports should be established and promoted, not external mandate. Resources for athletics are limited, so the resolution would displace popular sports with unpopular. Pro has given us no pertinent benefits to the resolution health or participation.

The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 1
Grape

Pro

Introduction:

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. His response was extremely strong and I look forward to discussing it.


The Resolution:

Con suggests that the resolution implies or suggests an external mandate requiring educational institutions to implement certain policies. I would advocate no such imposition and specified neither an authority nor a policy to carry out such a mandate. When I say that high schools and colleges should do something, I mean it would favorable for them to do so. There is a clear and significant difference between the suggestion that something should be done and that it must be done.

Furthermore, the resolution is a blanket statement refering to educational instutions in general and cannot be expected to be applicable on a case by case basis. At a school with a graduating class of twenty, it would not make sense to establish a football team. It would also not be effective to offer honors or remedial classes. Still, ceteris paribus, these classes do benefit students. I would suggest that the resolution be interpreted in the same way. It does not have to be universally true to be generally true.


Defense of my Case:

Con asserts, as is factually correct, that there are no prohibitions against women participating in certain sports. My introduction to the debate is frequently an exposition on the background of my position and my thoughts on the matter, and I did not mean to suggest that it was the current state of affairs.

The fact remains that women are passively denied the oppurtunity to participate in certain sports. If there is no women's wrestling team, women do not have the oppurtunity to participate in this sport. They might be permitted to compete against males, but this competition is unfair and has a greater social stigma; both of these factors may discourage women from participating in an activity that could bring them both personal enjoyment and health benefits. The barriers with football are even more pronounced.


Argument One: Benefits to Women

Con's only argument is that though sports teams are beneficial, they should not be required. The resolution does not specify a requirement. If it is not logistically rational to have a football program, then a football program should not be established. This is true of any program. It does not refute the resolution because this level of strictiness is in no way required.


Argument Two: Sexism

While Con brings up a number of related cases in his rebuttal, he does not address the matter at hand. I would suggest that educational institutions provide men with oppurtunities to participate in traditionally femenin sports, and I would suggest that women be give more oppurtunities in traditionally masculine sports that are non-contact. However, these issues are outside the scope of the debate.

I would suggest that promoting these teams would have an effect on social perceptions. People are feel discouraged from participating in activities that people like them are not normally involved in. They can be motivated to try positive things through the active promotion of oppurtunities for them. [1]

Con cannot ignore that fact that the differences between the male expectations in sports and the female expectations overtly suggest that the male role is superior and the female role subordinate. Cheerleaders literally stand on the sidelines of the competition, and powder-puff sports are an intentional mockery of the real game. As the rhetoric of football greats exhorts the roles it prepares young men for, the roles that cheerleading prepares women for are clear. That these attitudes would have lasting implications is blindingly obvious.

I would also like to make two corrections to Con's case. Cheerleading is considered a sport in some areas, included the state of Wisconsin. It has clear athletic elements. In any case, the statement that it is a girl's activity is not merely "[my] perception" as Con puts it. It is estimated that 97% of cheerleading participants are female, so to describe this simply an interpretation is bordering on the invention of factors. [2] In addition to this, I am compelled to note once again that I have not suggested that these decisions should not be left to the schools.


Argument Three: Participation

Once again, the resolution does not say that every school must have a women's football team or that they must be externally forced to. It does not outline a policy or authority. I have contended that ceteris paribus it is beneficial for schools to establish women's teams in contact sports.

Con's counterarguments seem to support my case more than his. He says that schools should respond to the choices of students. Well, the 500% increase in the number of female wrestlers in the past decade is a cleary indicater of what students want. [3] He also argues that football is not a dangerous sport, which seems helpful to the cause of promoting access to football programs.


Argument Four: Concerns about Physical Limitations

This was a preemptive argument on my part. I will assume that Con dropped it because it is not important to his case. This should not be held against him. I will leave it out if he continues to do so.


Counteragument One: There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports

I agree will Con on this point. However, it's not an effective argument. There is no reason to prefer sports that involving lots of running, yet this is not an argument against soccer and cross country. The resolution implied no mandate, and it certainly implied no requirement to promote contact sports over other sports. Women are already allowed to participate in many of the most popular sports, so it would have been pointless to debate about that. None of this changes that fact that many females want to participate in contact sports and it would be beneficial to give them a chance to do so.


Counterargument Two: Existing Women's Sports Would Have To Be Dropped

This contention would be true if we assume that athletic budgets are fixed. However, althetic teams frequently do a great deal of fundraising, especially at the high school level. [4] As I have stated ad nausem, no one will be forcing anyone to allocate funds in a certain way. I don't know why Con considers this to be the logical extension of a resolution that states at a certain course of action is generally beneficial, but he uses this objection in every argument.

In a situation with tight funds, starting new programs of any kind is not desirable. The fact that men's teams are being cut is not an argument that men's teams shouldn't be established and promoted, is it? It simply means that it is not financially feasible to do so. That fact that we should do something does not mean we must do it in spite of logistical or financial problems that arise on a case by case basis. Programs that can afford to do so should promote women's contact sports.


Counterargument: Life Sports Are Better

Con makes another generally agreeable point that does not effectively counter the resolution. Contact sports should do not have be promoted at the expense of life sports. However, some people simply prefer contact sports or would be more likely to get involved in them. A girl who would rather play football than swim should be given the oppurtunity. Many of the sports Con provided are frequented used in cross training for contact sports in any case. [5] Furthermore, these sports all lack many of the vital components of contact sports, including teamwork, physical skill and coordination, and competitiveness. One does not gain the same experience bicycling as by being on a Varsity football team.


Sources:
[1] Economics: The Ideas, The Issues by Jerry Evensky
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...;(formerly source 1)
[4] http://maineaf.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
RoyLatham

Con

The Resolution

There is no enforcement body that demands resolutions be obeyed. The compulsion of the resolution is from the supposed superiority of the facts and logic supporting it over alternatives. A case is "compelling" if the conclusion cannot be resisted by counter argument. If the benefits of establishing and promoting contact sports for women outweigh the disadvantages, then no school will have sufficient reason not to establish and promote contact sports for women.

Your school does not have a women's football team. It's very likely your school is obeying Title IX and is now equally funding men's and women's athletics. If the resolution is affirmed, then whoever is in charge of the athletics program should drop an existing women'ssport, hire a football coach for a women's team, buy the needed equipment, and promote the new team.

There might be some peculiar circumstances -- a school for the blind might be exempted from football -- but the logic should be compelling in every normal case. Your school should be compelled by the logic of the affirmative case to carry out the resolution.

The current circumstances are that women's sports are guaranteed equal funding by law and which sports are established and promoted are determined by the schools and the interests of the athletes. Pro has offered no compelling reason to abandon that way of doing business.

1. Benefits to women


The resolution states: High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote women’s teams in contact sports, including football and wrestling. But in R2, Pro says "If it is not logistically rational to have a football program, then a football program should not be established." If it s not logistically rational to have a football team, then the resolution fails because the resolution claims it is rational to do so. Admittng that it may or may not be rational depending upon circumstances negates the resolution and concedes the debate.

So what are the claimed benefits to women? Pro concedes that contact sports are no better than other sports. I claim that contact sports are worse, because contact sports are not life sports, and moves the women's program away from life sports.

2. Sexism

Pro's premise is that promoting contact sports for women would reduce sexism. My rebuttal is if we examine sports traditionally thought to be feminine, having male participation has not diminished that perception. There are male cheerleaders, but nonetheless Pro vigorously maintains that cheerleading is a female sport. (I said cheerleading is like a sport. Pro says it is a sport. It's being a sport better supports my case.)

Pro responds that what happens in male sports, i.e., sexism is not eliminated by equal access, does not apply to women's sports. Male cheerleaders have no affect on cheerleading being perceived as a female sport, but Pro expects that having female football players would change the way football is perceived. That's sexist. I'm shocked. the psychology is the same, it is attached to the sport, not the participants.

Pro's case rests upon football having cheerleaders. If cheerleading is a source of evil permeating society, then the cure is to ban cheerleading, not to try to make football players out of cheerleaders.

Cheerleading really is not a problem,. Society should not demand that men and women always be interchangeable. I don't agree that cheerleading is subordinate. Cheerleaders are working with the crowd of spectators, not with the football players. Football players are there to entertain the crowd, and cheerleaders are doing exactly the same thing. I think cheerleaders know they are part of the event, not subordinate to the game.

3. Participation


Pro cited statistics that women's wrestling has increased substantially, so therefore it proves there is a sweeping demand for contact sports. If a sport has 20 participants when it's introduced and 100 participants a few years later, that's 500% growth. If tiddly-winks were introduced as a sport, we would expect the same thing to happen. It depends upon starting from zero an a small number of people being accommodated.

Consider, “Curling is a fast-growing sport that incorporates strategy, teamwork, sportsmanship and social interaction into a fun-filled game.” http://www.stateoforegon.info...
Fast growth does not indicate broad demand.

I challenge Pro to produce evidence of broad demand by women for women's football. If it replaced another sport, overall participation would drop.


N1. There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports


Pro agrees there is no reason to prefer contact sports. A resolution is affirmed if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So when Pro grants there is no reason to prefer contact sports, it means there is no advantage in terms of athletics. The only claimed advantages are in the realm of social engineering.

Pro argues that if something is not offered than it is "denied" and so contact sports should be offered to remedy the denial. Similarly, most students are denied caber tossing, alligator wrestling, log rolling, knife throwing, sumo, harri jasotzea (stone lifting), and rope skipping .

N2. Existing Women's Sports Would Have To Be Dropped


Pro says the point would be true if athletic budgets were fixed. I provided evidence that athletics budgets are in fact contracting, with men's football and wrestling being dropped. Pro provided no evidence that budgets are expanding or could be expanded, beyond the theory that funds could be raised. The resolution is that schools should establish and encourage women's contact sports. Schools work within budgets funded by taxes. Sports like Little league are funded by contributions, but those are not within the school system.

The debate is "in the United States" and in the United states schools have fixed or, more likely, shrinking, athletics budgets. To understand by point consider a resolution, "Schools in the United States should offer courses in no fewer than twenty-five foreign languages." That would be great if unlimited funding were available, but we know that is not the case, and it is unreasonable to assume unlimited funding is the case. If the resolution were prefaced with, "If funds are available ..." it would be a different story, but that is not what is proposed.

Pro argues, "The fact that men's teams are being cut is not an argument that men's teams shouldn't be established and promoted, is it?" It's an argument that new teams of a certain type shouldn't be established or promoted, unless there was a case for cutting the existing teams.

N3. Life sports are better.


I n the real world there are finite resources. In reality, contact sports compete with other sports for "establishment and promotion." I contend that life sports should be preferred because of the lasting benefits. Pro claims that contact sports have the advantage of being a team sport. Pro's two main examples are football, a team sport, and wrestling, not a team sport. There is a wrestling team, but matches are one-on-one. Life sports include baseball and doubles tennis, both team sports. Pro argues that life sports all lack "physical skill and coordination, and competitiveness." That's not the case. Life sports include tennis, golf, racket ball, and skiing.

Summary

Pro claims the debate is set in a fantasy world of unlimited resources. In the real world the resolution is negated. Pro further claims that affirming that contact sports should be implemented does not mean that there is are compelling reasons to actually implement them, but rather only to wish it. That's admitting the resolution does not have compelling reasons behind it.

Debate Round No. 2
Grape

Pro

The Resolution:

The disagreement about the meaning of the resolution is resulting mainly from our contrasting view of what is meant by “should.” I will go back to my original point about offering different classes based on students’ abilities and interests. To argue against this on the basis that some schools lack funding or could not draw significant participation is to avoid the matter itself.

By arguing that something should be done, I am arguing that it is good in itself. If the entire United States were destroyed by aliens tomorrow, it would still be a good idea in itself for schools to offer more classes.

Con later equates my claim to the argument that schools should offer twenty-five foreign languages. I would say that they should! The fact that not all schools have the resources to do so does not make this a bad idea in itself.

Argument One: Benefits to Women

I now better understand what Con is arguing. I will refer him and readers to Rule 2. If contact sports are inferior to life sports, it logically follows that males should not participate in contact sports either. Unless Con can explain why life sports are better for women but not for men this argument is prohibited.

Argument Two: Sexism

Con makes a valid point in proposing that cheerleading is still considered a women’s activity even though men participate. However, I did not go so far as to say that it would change perceptions overnight or that it would eliminate problems entirely.

I would suggest that it is easier for traditionally masculine activities to become gender neutral than for traditionally female activities to do the same. For one thing, males are likely to face more derision than females for violating gender norms. Sports like gymnastics, track and field, and soccer are considered gender neutral even though they were traditionally masculine. I do not foresee men’s powder-puff football taking off in the same way. There is simply no analogy.

In the mid 20th Century males dominated college attendance in the United States, but now female attendance has equalized. [1] Positive social changes can occur, and we should take action to bring them about.
Furthermore, cheerleading is in no way equal to football. They are about equal in popularity, but football receives far more attention. They are both technically there to entertain the crowd, but it is the football players who draw the crowd and it is their performance that ultimately matters. No one watches the Superbowl to see how the cheerleaders do.

Con ignores the point about how women are overtly mocked and subordinated even in “legitimate” sports. The attitudes surrounding activities like “powder-puff” football are too obvious to ignore.

Argument Three: Participation

Con is right in principle here, but I will note that the example I gave was orders of magnitude larger than his. A vastly greater number of women than ever before are participating in contact sports even in spite of the barriers. If barriers were taken down then participation would increase exponentially at an even greater rate.

I have already provided evidence of such high demand. Universities are establishing contact sports teams for women, and participation in high school contact sports is increasing. [2,3] There is strong research and consistent agreement among related organizations to suggest that offering such sports is beneficial. [4,5]

Counterargument One: There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports

I will refer to Rule 2 again. Con is arguing that we should get rid of contact sports entirely, which is specifically not allowed. It is nonsense to say that this objection applies only to women.

In any case, the fact that there is no reason to favor running intensive sports is not an argument against soccer and track. There does not have to be a specific reason to favor an activity in order for it to be productive. That some people prefer certain sports is sufficient.

Con compares women’s contact sports to a variety of obscure activities, many of which are not sports. I am not advocating for alligator wrestling (sounds a bit dangerous), but if possible schools should offer even unpopular sports. They are limited by available resources, but in principle as resources increase more programs can and should be offered. Those schools that have sufficient resources should offer contact sports for women.

Counterargument Two: Existing Sports Would Have To Be Cut

Con equates what is true situationally to what is true in principle. Inability to fund women’s contact sports is not an intrinsic trait of all athletic budgets. One cannot possibly prove that it is a bad idea in principle just because not everyone has the resources to do it now. Consider the argument, “All sick people should receive medical treatment.” That is obviously not possible now, but it is a desirable outcome that we should strive for. Con has presented obstacles that must be overcome but has said nothing about the desirability of the goal itself.

Unless Con can show that all schools in the US will never be able to afford these programs, all he’s left with is Title IX. Considering that fact that Title IX is itself criticized for precluding women from contact sports, using it as evidence is a little questionable. [6] If it is a problem then it should be modified in pursuit of the goal. Consider if I had contended that gay marriage should be allowed in the United States and my opponent cited the DOMA in opposition.

My argument does not rest on unlimited funding; it rests on sufficient funding. Women’s football is not infinitely low on the list of priorities for the athletic budget just because it is not on the top. It is certainly above golf, bowling, and other less athletic sports of limited and decreasing popularity. [7]

Counterargument Three: Life Sports Are Better

Con seems to argue that golf and bicycling offer the same athletic experience as wrestling and football. There is an established difference in the level of intensity demanded by these different activities. More importantly, the experience for the athletes is very different, which is why football draws many participants who would not be interested in life sports.

Con also creates a false dichotomy between life sports and contact sports. Both can be funded and offered to students. If he suggests that we should drop contact sports and replacement them with life sports, he is in violation of Rule 2. His arguments all lead to the unstated conclusion that we should eliminate contact sports for both men and women, a line of argument that was specifically prohibited.

Conclusion:

I apologize for not bringing up Rule 2 in the previous round. This was mostly my fault for not recognizing the implications of what Con meant by finite resources, and because I focused on rebutting his misrepresentation of the resolution as a mandate. His arguments for P1, N1, and N3 are against contact sports and not female participation, which is prohibited.

Con has gone to great lengths to dodge the actual issue. His only legitimate objections are logistical problems that are not universally existent. The goal is for schools to establish and promote programs for women. There are financial and social barriers to this, sure. Overcoming these problems is part of what is entailed by the resolution. Positive changes do not come about if we let the immediate obstacles convince us that they are impossible.

Sources:
[2] Round 1, Source 1
[3] Round 1, Source 2

RoyLatham

Con

Thanks to Pro for a good debate.

The Resolution


The resolution could be implemented right away. Schools could “establish and promote” contact sports for women. The way they could do it is to take funds away from sports currently in the athletic program and use them to hire coaches and buy equipment for women's contact sports. The debate question is, should that be done? It should be done only if the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages.
.

Pro contends that the resolution is really some sort of question of principle, and not a call for actual implementation.” One reason we know that the resolution is not a question of principle is that it calls for schools to “establish contact sports, including football and wrestling.” That goes way beyond saying that women should not be denied contact sports, it says that it should be done, regardless of tradition (e.g., the school has a tradition of strong women's basketball) or the desires of the schools athletes (e.g., for some reason curling has become a hot sport locally).
.

I used language studies as an example of the meaning of the resolution. Pro claim that my example could be interpreted as a matter of principle, not practice. Compare two possible resolutions:
.

R1. High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote the study of the Serbo-Croation language.
.

R2. High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote the study of the Mandarin Chinese language.
.

I claim R1 certainly fails, but R2 could be affirmed. There is nothing wrong with the Serbo-Croation language, but schools schools should not “establish and promote” it, because the advantages are not persuasive. R2 is different, Chinese is an important language in modern commerce and is rapidly rising in importance. Arguably it should displace French and some other languages in most curricula. R2 is logically taken as a practical resolution: the argument is that it can be done and schools should do it.

Argument One: Benefits to Women

If any new sport is established, there will a benefit to those who wish to participate. However, there is a disadvantage to those who are denied participation in the sports cut to establish the new one. Under the current system, new sports are adopted and dropped locally, based upon the school tradition and the interests of the athletes. Pro claims that women's wrestling is growing rapidly under the present system. He offers no evidence whatsoever that women who want wrestling are systematically denied. He has provided no evidence that even one women's football team was desired by athletes, let alone denied. Yet the resolution demands that women's football and wresting teams be established, whether anyone wants them or not.

Argument Two: Sexism

Pro's primary example of sexism was cheerleaders in football. Pro grants that the advent of male cheerleaders has done nothing to change the perception of cheerleading as a female sport. He introduces two new arguments in this final round that it's a matter of time and that some sports like track and field are inherently gender neutral. So not only running, but discus a shot put are gender neutral? Pro's contention is unsupported.

I think the fundamental mistake is at this point being concern with sexism, I would ca it political correctness, in sports. At the time title IX was passed, c. 1970, it was a valid concern that women were not participating in sports. But there has been equal funding for 40 years, and four of the five most popular sports are enjoyed equally y men and women. the exceptions are football for men, and volleyball for women. I say, let the athletes do what they want to do.

I argued cheerleaders are really entertaining the crowd, just as football players are entertaining the crowd. Cheerleading is not sexist, even though it appears so to Pro. Pro did not respond.

Argument Three: Participation

Con argues that many ore women are participating in contact sports, despite the barriers. What barriers? Pro provided no evidence that polar demand to establish a women's wresting team was denied due to the reasons he imagines. challenged Pro to provide evidence of demands for women's football, which he specifically says should be established. He d not cite any demand. Teams are not established solely because there is no demand.

Suppose I claimed "Curling teams should be promoted and established by schools in the US." Further suppose that I then claimed this would overcome hared of everything Canadian, and the proof is that curling is growing rapidly despite the barrier of Canadian hatred. Clearly, the argument fails because "hatred of everything Canadian" was never prove to be the barrier. The barrier as lack of interest, no more. Interest rises as those who participate raise enthusiasm. that's the way contact sports for women will progress or not, depending on the enthusiasm of part cants.

Counterargument One: There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports

Pro invokes Rule 2, that I cannot propose banning all contact sports.

At no time did I say or imply that men's contact sports should be banned. I did not propose that women's contact sports be banned. Had the resolution been “Men's contact sports should be further established and promoted ...” I would have had the same objection as with women's contact sports. My argument is that if some extra money is made available for sports, then it ought to be put towards life sports rather than contact sports. Life sports are better because they promote good health over a lifetime. Therefore, a disadvantage of the resolution is that it takes athletics in the wrong direction.

Counterargument Two: Existing Sports Would Have To Be Cut

This was discussed under The Resolution.

Counterargument Three: Life Sports Are Better

n R2, Pro seemed to mostly agree that life sports were athletically equivalent, with the reservation that life sports did not tech team play. I pointed out that life sports included soft ball and doubles tennis. In R3, Pro introduced the new argument that contact sports were athletically superior. He cited football as being more intense than golf or biking. Life sports, however, include intense sports like tennis. How intense life sports running, swimming, and biking are is adjustable for age and ability. Those are the triathlon sports, clearly intense. Golf when practiced is more intense than football when not practiced. An advantage of life sports is that they are practiced after the school years.

Pro's R3.7 says that golf is declining in popularity with young people, while tennis is increasing in popularity. That's fine, both are life sports. Pro then argues that women's football ought to therefore displace golf as a priority in school sports. The reason given for golf's decline is the high cost of golf courses and failure to develop a version of the sport for very young players. Tennis developed a low cost version for very young players. Despite the decline 1.8 million will take up golf in elementary school alone. Women's football remain close to zero in popularity. Pro offered no data women's football is even growing in popularity. It shouldn't displace golf unless it grows substantially in popularity. The data argues for tennis displacing golf, which it is doing on it's own.
.

Summary

I have no objection to either men or women participating in contact sports. The present system allows that to happen. However, schools should not establish and promote contact sports for women, because doing so necessarily harms existing sports and provides no significant compensating advantages.

Pro introduced new arguments and evidence in the final round. that's not a crime against nature, but it's a debate conduct violation. the claim I violated rule 2 was clrly invalid.

The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Williaam 3 years ago
Williaam
Women are allowed to play on high school level/college level sports teams if there isn't a female team for that sport. It's actually against the law to disable a woman from joining a sports team where an alternative is not readily available. However, I would like to make it a point that women should not be allowed to enter said sport with reduced standards. You want to play with the boys, then do it - but don't be surprised if you don't play because you don't meet the standard.
Posted by Amethist17 3 years ago
Amethist17
cheerleading is a sport.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I wonder if the ddo softwar eis counting the embedded html tags, the <b></b> stuff. That would be about the right number of characters added. Something is wrong.

I was thinking that using martial arts as the preferred women's contact sport would work better for the Pro side, but ultimately probably not a winning change. A good thoughtful debate.
Posted by Grape 3 years ago
Grape
I have been having all sorts of similar problems with formatting. I'm also baffled by how arounds that are 7900 characters in MS Word always end up being 8003 characters when I try to post them.

That was a very good debate. I have been convinced that it would not be worthwhile to promote women's sports in the way that I originally suggested.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I had to put in periods between some paragraphs to get the rich text formatting to skip a line. No number of spaces of carriage returns would force a line feed. Arrgh.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I think it's a almost general agreement with different interpretations of the resolution."

It is a semantic contention, I suspected that it would be when Roy so quickly agreed to take the debate. I don't see how Grape can counter Roy's objection so it will be interesting to see the conclusion.
Posted by darkkermit 3 years ago
darkkermit
wow this looks like its going to be an amazing debate. Both these debaters are incredibly good. Since Grape is undefeated, I'm quite interested if this debate could be his first loss.
Posted by mongoose 3 years ago
mongoose
This looks like the following:

Pro: "Women want more contact sports, so they should be promoted."
Con: "Contact sports should be established only when women actively want them."

I think it's a almost general agreement with different interpretations of the resolution.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
It can happen that a short voting period lets vote bombers win, but vote bombers are the most likely to go back and vote on old debates. Not long ago I had a guy I beat in a debate go back and vote bomb every debate I had that was still in the voting period. it never ends. 3 months is OK.
Posted by Grape 3 years ago
Grape
The main reason I use longer voting periods (or unlimited voting periods) is to prevent outcomes like this:

http://www.debate.org...

When a debate has a short voting period it is sometimes decided entirely by vote bombing. I made the period three months because there is no option for two months and I thought we would both find it to be an acceptable compromise.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Amethist17 3 years ago
Amethist17
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: wikiepedia is so not a valid source
Vote Placed by mistavega 3 years ago
mistavega
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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: OMG ROYLATHAM!!! He's so dreamy dynamic and convincing in his arguments.
Vote Placed by apologia101 3 years ago
apologia101
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 3 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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 Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 3 years ago
Grape
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has convinced me that now is not the time to implement to resolution. Spelling and grammar mistakes were limited to small typos and sources were good on both sides. The Round 3 argument rule was meant to apply only to the contender (so both sides could respond to all arguments) but I made a mistake by not making that clear.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 3 years ago
darkkermit
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct: CON. Pro introduces new arguments in round 3. spelling: PRO. CON makes a few typos. For example, uses schools twice. convincing arguments: CON. Grape fails to show that contact sports should be prefer over other sports, and fails to show that their is sexism. PRO tries to enter into semantics towards the end, but it ultimately defeated. Sources: PRO fails to cite evidence that there is a demand for women in contact sports or that women are denied access to contact sports based on se
Vote Placed by badger 3 years ago
badger
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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: i think con clearly showed why the way it is already is preferable to what pro proposed.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GrapeRoyLathamTied
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: Semantic point, but very clear on "should establish".