The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

girls rugby

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,544 times Debate No: 44279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




for this i just want to see what you think, my first debate . for this argument i will for girls rugby. do you think girls should play rugby? i belive that there is no reason why girls can't play, its just peoples opions that stop grils from playing. Both sexes can do exactly the same as the opposite sex. Girls who have a passion for such a rough sport should be able to play the game without being discriminated agaist. The sport isn't just for rough lads, its for everyone who wants to play, there is no law on girls not playing rugby. The game should be as big as boys rugby. Everyone can play if they put thier heart to it.
Do you agree?


In debate, your opponent will never agree with you, even if they agree with you.

Soooo lets start.



a. All social animals have decorum, what is acceptable according to what is good for the social structure.
I.E. Baboons exile members who eat out of turn, hit infants, or are overly greedy with food

b. Human decorum differentiates between sexes
I.E. Our clothes, our names, our suffixes prefixes, our proffered interests. all are dictated by what is acceptable

c. It is a social norm of humans to allow men to be aggressive and competitive because it is representative of their role in the natural social structure as testosterone jacked hunters who prove their worth by defeating others.
I.E. Football, Boxing, Stags butting heads, wrestling, basketball, baseball, fencing, sumo wrestling

d. This is the way that the females in the social group can choose suitable mates, according to which is the biggest, most assertive confident and capable, kind of like an inherent gene screening process. We are attracted to strength aggression and size in men for a reason, it is so that strong large aggressive genes might be passed on to offspring.

e. It is deemed acceptable that women play sports that are less aggressive and more co-operative this is to ensure conversely that reason and civility are passed on in our species.


LINK. If we deem it socially acceptable for women to play rugby

a. We will see an increase in aggression and violence.

b. Women will be chosen as mates according to their testosterone levels as well

This leads to waves of violence in coming generations, where before men and women were seperated by social norms into the group that is civil and checks back against the group that is not.

This violence would have exponential growth, as the object of aggressive sports are to filter out the small and weak and find the biggest and strongest (and meanest) if this is happening for both men and women in our social norms we will have large dumb jocks running around everywhere and in 1000 years nobody will go to school, they'll just go to practice.
Debate Round No. 1


but surely if someone has a passion for something that they love, they should be able to play?
'b. Women will be chosen as mates according to their testosterone levels as well'
would it be so bad if woman were chose as mates according to their testosterone levels?


but surely if someone has a passion for something that they love, they should be able to play?
'b. Women will be chosen as mates according to their testosterone levels as well'
would it be so bad if woman were chose as mates according to their testosterone levels?

My opponent drops all of my arguments and decides to hinge the debate on two points, one, that women being chosen as mates by men for their testosterone levels is not bad. Two that passion is good reason for action.

1) My opponent gives no reason as to why choosing women according to their testosterone levels would not be bad, but as I had previously stated, social norms exist to protect organisms in a social order, in this case by filtering male genes according to the who has the most testosterone, and women by who has the least. This argument flows through the debate as a major harm created by affirming the resolution.

a. To be sure, girls should not play rugby because it would mean a shift in decorum that would be detrimental to the future of our species.

b. We already are attracted to aggressive genes in men, and civil diplomatic genes in women. This social norm is valuable to the state of the world. According to Steven Pinker experimental psychologist, linguist and author, violence has been decreasing per capita since the creation of permanent settlements.

c. I believe this is because in order to protect the species while living in droves so closely together, we adapted customs and culture that would allow us to be co-operative and healthy. These customs have preserved the peace and been passed on for that reason.

d. One should not think lightly of a social shift, we establish what seems to the individual to be absurd customs because that is how we have evolved.

2) Passion is good reason for action.

a. Yes passion stirs and it should be quenched, but if the survival of yourself, family and species is a priority, passion should only be considered a variable when asking whether or not one should do a thing.

b. Passion leads one to act rashly and ignore reason, when depended on solely to motivate action, one will find themselves in a dangerous place due to throwing precaution to the wind.

c. In this case the decision impacts more than just the individual, the individual should take into account all possible factors in making their decision.

d. I concede that one should do what makes them happy, but suggest that they should not ignore the fact of genes, social structure, future IQ, and increased violence.

3) My plan was not a policy action to ban women from playing rugby, but a suggestion that women should not play rugby.

a. All should be equal under the eyes of the law, not because all are equal, but because we are all equally different, and should be allowed to carry out our one and only lives without unnecessary intervention from the government.

b. Nevertheless, the impacts of shifting the norm that dictates and has been dictating the way we measure the genes of men and women in society, last longer, and are of greater magnitude than the impacts of not playing rugby.

c. Surely there are better sports that do not involve violence and masculinity that a girl could get involved in, debate is one of those.
Debate Round No. 2


Some aggression in life can be a positive. Means we can defend ourselves. Girls playing rugby can still have a non violent future. Lads can play softer games like netball and that doesn't make them any less masculine so why not a violent game for girls?


It is not a matter of positive or negative, I write disadvantages to the resolution, you write advantages, then the voters weigh the net benefits.

You are getting it, but I think you need to write more and with more structure, and cover more of the opposing case.

Also in order to win a debate you should have more than just one argument. You give the opponent too much free space to maneuver.

Message me if you want some tips on writing structured cases.

You are going to vote PRO on this debate because this was not fair on my end to take this case in the first place.

Plus it is a good thing that someone wants to debate and we don't want to discourage courage.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ambivalentsoul 6 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it's obvious who deserves to win here. That is why I have decided to give all 7 of the points to con, since his arguments were way more thought out. And con's spelling and grammar wasn't awful. Therefor I have tied the debate.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 6 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting pro as con "cheated".

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