The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Sport is not for women

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,337 times Debate No: 48807
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




We have boxing now that is Inclusive of women. Rugby also promotes womens competitions. Should we continue on this parallel journey of equality? My argument is that no we shouldn't. We are different but equal and Dykes pretending to be men should not be encouraged as being OK.
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. [1] 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?

Debate Round No. 1


Good points all. I concede. My laziness of language has undone me.The point I attempted and failed to make was that women are less competitive(they are) than men and sport is not of their nature. ,Going to the Gym is fine , but that's exercise not a Gladiator in sight.


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.) [1] 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. [2] And discovered in 1996 and announced in 2000, archaeologists found proof that there were, surprisingly, female gladiators in ancient Rome. [3] 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.

Debate Round No. 2


Men compete . It is the way nature made us. Women nurture and that is how we are.
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. [1] 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.

Debate Round No. 3


Womens sport continues to be promoted by such organisations as the IOC. The IOC is corrupt. It is an unnatural position to encourage the Idea that we are equal and sport is proof of that. Watching two ladies punching each other at a boxing event is unedifying to all Involved. Contact sports are a male preserve.
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.
Debate Round No. 4


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.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sparrow24601 6 years ago
Sure, birdlandmemories, I'd love to! You can start a debate if you want and I'd be happy to argue my side.
Posted by birdlandmemories 6 years ago
Hey con, I can debate you on this.
Posted by Hematite12 7 years ago
I mean no offense Pro, but that is some of the worst logic I've ever seen haha...

So because women are often less competitive (which is a questionable generalization), that means they shouldn't be competitive? The ones playing sports are obviously competitive, so please tell me WHAT logic says that because other women aren't as competitive as them they shouldn't be either?..
Posted by Hematite12 7 years ago
Men vs women in sports? No. That's like apples vs oranges.

Women in tough army positions? Arguable, but it seems to me not, because based on what I've heard, women simply aren't physically capable of the massive capacity for strength that men have.

Women in sports? Why the f*** not? If they are playing vs each other, what the heck is the argument against that? They can do whatever the heck they want with their bodies.
Posted by angryduck 7 years ago
Good optimism there and thanks for your comment. I don't accept that an athlete should be exempted from qualifying standards because they are not male.
Perhaps the eminent marriage of entertainment and sport will address this.
Posted by Kraken 7 years ago
if this debate is about equality in athletics, your clearly wrong. look at our military, there are women who can clearly out gun men in the same position. sure women are at a physical dis advantage but that's the fun of it. women trying to prove that no, they can do everything that men can and that the only reason it has not been that way is because men haven't aloud it. women need to push for what they themselves are called to and if thats playing football, who should tell them no?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.