EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2841

That feminism should celebrate unisex sports leagues

(CON)
WINNER!
10 points
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte (PRO)
Feminism is for the equality of men and women in theory. Unisex sports leagues allow for men and women to compete with each other on equal ground. Unixsex sports leagues  would be one of the most notable advances in feminism. Am I saying all sports should be unisex? No. Am I saying that we should abandon male only or female only sports leagues? No. Feminism would best be personified in sports in unisex leagues where men and women can compete with each other. The most common unisex sports leagues I can recall from memory would be soccer or volleyball where men and women may compete with each other.

I will keep my central point short for Round 1 and further elaborate in the oncoming rounds the types of  unisex currently prevalent and why they should be celebrated by feminism. Unisex sports leagues should be encouraged and celebrated by feminists since everyone would be able to have a choice to join such leagues.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-24 00:54:13
| Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (CON)
I would like to thank my opponent for posting their first argument.

I don't believe that feminists should celebrate unisex sports leagues. For years, feminists have been asking to have unisex sports leagues. However, while I believe that having unisex sports leagues should be allowed, I don't believe that it  should be celebrated. Let me tell you why. 

First of all, when you ask that feminists celebrate unisex sports leagues, why must they celebrate? After all, it is a simple privilege to have these sports leagues, but these rights have been denied. Since this is a right that everyone should have, we don't have to celebrate it. It should have been accepted long ago, but it was not. Therefore, if they celebrate it, they are not celebrating this event, but celebrating the fact that feminists had their rights denied.

Also, if these leagues are created, it would definitely lead to a number of problems. If a country's unisex sports league only accepted the best because of an event,(i.e: World Cup) women would still be discriminated. They would still be, in some people's opinions, lesser than the men. It could lead to lawsuits and discrimination, which would cause more trouble than a unisex sports league is worth.

Thank you for your time and consideration, judges.

Return To Top | Posted:
2015-12-26 13:32:02
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Anthony Tai: Hey there friend
HanFeiziStudent: Hey, thanks for presenting your arguments
HanFeiziStudent: Are unisex sports a form of equality? Yes or no.
Anthony Tai: No, the players are not equal
Anthony Tai: There may be a chance that the team might end up as all-men, which results in both controversy and anger
Anthony Tai: Do you believe in Christ? (this question is actually relevant)
HanFeiziStudent: No, I do not believe in Christ
HanFeiziStudent: Do you believe men and woman should be allowed to choose to engage in unisex sports? Yes or No.
Anthony Tai: If they were not allowed to, then there would be no freedom
Anthony Tai: Ask again, sir
HanFeiziStudent: That wasn't the question. Do you believe they should be allowed to engage in unisex sports? Yes or No.
HanFeiziStudent: The question relates to your own opinion in the matter

Return To Top | Speak Round
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte (PRO)
My opponent has brought up several points that are valid by should be dismissed upon critical thought. 

My opponent claims that these unisex leagues should not be celebrated because these are rights that should of been guranteed. He goes on to claim that by celebrating unisex leagues we are celebrating the denial of rights. This shows my opponent has ignored my arguments from last round. Men and women being allowed to participate with one another is what feminists should be celebrating. Feminists should be celebrating when women are successful in such unisex sports leagues. The patriarchy that feminists have theorized is under attack when in unisex sports. Showing that women can compete with men and win is to be celebrated by feminists.

My opponent claims that lawsuits will ensue in such unisex sports leagues. Possibly but that is irrelevant to this debate. We are debating why feminists should celebrate unisex sports leagues. The people involved in the lawsuits will be the employer and their players. This has nothing to do with why feminists should be celebrating unisex sports leagues.


During the cross examination, my opponent goes on to claim that the players are not equal. This is based on my opponents opinion rather than fact. Look at this image here.


This is in judo. Ronda Rousey took down three Japanese professional judo martial artists in a game show. Ronda Rousey, a woman, proved more than capable of taking down three men. So the idea that men and women can not be equal in such sports has been proven wrong. 

I can post many stories but I will leave it at that for now. Next round I will show examples of women being successful in unisex leagues  and why feminists should celebrate it.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-05 01:48:19
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
HanFeiziStudent: Do you forfeit this debate?
Anthony Tai: No, why do you ask?
Anthony Tai: Oh, I see what you mean. I guess there was an error. I am 99% sure that I typed it in, but I guess I just didn't press "enter" or something. If you want, do you want to have the last round in the comments by posting a link, or simply debating?
HanFeiziStudent: No, we should just finish the debate
HanFeiziStudent: Do you believe men and women are equal? Yes or No.
Anthony Tai: They might have equal rights, but anyone who believes that men and women are completely the same besides anatomy is completely one-sided or tends to overlook things.
Anthony Tai: Men are often stronger, with more testosterone and muscle. They tend to make reckless moves sometimes, and rely on physical strength. (note that I said "often," not "always")
Anthony Tai: Women are often more diplomatic, and are much more willing to come to a conclusion or agreement before relying on physical strength or conflict.
Anthony Tai: So no, men and women are not equal in the fact that they have different capabilities and mindsets.
Anthony Tai: What's your opinion? Do you feel the same way?
HanFeiziStudent: No, I don't feel the same way.
HanFeiziStudent: You say that men and women have different mindsets and capabilities, so do you believe that we should discriminate based on sex? Yes or no.
Anthony Tai: I don't believe that we should discriminate, but it's human nature to bias and be discriminating.
Anthony Tai: Aside from having different anatomies, do you believe that MOST men and women are pretty much the same?
Anthony Tai: State your reasoning: why or why not

Return To Top | Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (CON)
I'd like to thank my opponent for continuing this debate. I'd also like to thank him for giving me a second chance for this.

I'd like to address the statement that you made in your first paragraph. I'm sorry for not making it clearer; I often get tunnel vision and only think about myself during debates. First of all, I don't think that feminists should be celebrating this, because they are basically celebrating the day that there was a lot of inequality created in sports. You stated that women might be successful in such unisex sports leagues, but they might not always be as successful as men. I'm not trying to be discriminating, but I'm just trying to address the fact that it might not always be fair, because of bias, whether intentional or not. The lawsuit statement that I made is actually not irrelevant, because all that could be created by unisex sports leagues, and that shouldn't exactly be celebrated.

I acknowledge the fact that lots of people are always putting bias towards genders. While women are often not as strong as men (this is not to offend anyone; if I offended you, then I'm sorry), this is not always true in all cases. Just like your Ronda Rousey example, she can be just as strong as men, but not all women are like that. However, you might be thinking: Doesn't a sport only accept the best of the best? You would be right in thinking this. The best women athletes are often as good as men. However, not everyone thinks this. The process in which one becomes a player in the "pro" leagues are not in tryouts. The best team out of sports leagues are appointed a "scout" to see how they do. But what if the scout is biased? It's not necessarily the scout's fault; it's just instinct, as I've stated before. He/she (gender equality, guys :D) could be thinking: "that person just got lucky." Therefore, I doubt that one-gender leagues will be a thing that will be agreed on for everyone.

Thanks for your time and consideration, judges and debater.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-20 12:56:27
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Anthony Tai: I want to repeat my question that I asked in the last Cross-Examination. Also: are you a feminist?
Anthony Tai: Uh, seeing as how you don't (or refuse to) answer this question, I guess this cross-examination belongs to me.
Anthony Tai: I understand if you don't have time, but I hope that you answer this question. Otherwise, I will count it as an argument dropped.

Return To Top | Speak Round
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte (PRO)
To answer my opponent's previous question he asked during the cross examination, yes I am a feminist. My time, has cut down dramatically so I didn't have the time to do the cross examination.

Let us remember the resolution of this debate, "that feminism should celebrate unisex sports league." I would argue most of my opponent's arguments support the patriarchy are directly opposed to feminism.

My opponent has claimed that people are biased towards genders. If that is my opponent's stance, then that argument is diametrically opposed to feminism. Feminism is the equality of men and women. My opponent goes on to mention how the leagues may not be fair because of the bias. All feminists by definition would be opposed to such a bias. One can't embrace such a bias while arguing for fairness and equality.

I move forward that the resolution has been affirmed.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-30 12:18:12
| Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (CON)
I would like to thank my opponent for continuing this debate.

There is something that I would like to ask, and I asked it to my opponent previously in one of the previous Cross-Examinations. However, he did not address it nor answer it, so I would like to ask them once more: "Aside from having different anatomies, do you believe that MOST men and women are pretty much the same?" I will give you one last chance to answer this question in the last round; if you don't, the round goes to me, due to your refusal to answer my question. It also means that either you don't take my question seriously, or it is a potential weak point that you cannot address.

Second of all, I'd like to note that you might not have understood my statement. You stated that "All feminists by definition would be opposed to such a bias." But it is unlikely that feminists would be able to detect any bias towards men or women. While the "scout" that I mentioned in my previous debate might be a "professional,"  they might not always be a feminist, and therefore they are bound to have some slight bias. After all, these "scouts" are not being paid to put one gender above the other in sports, but they bias anyway. And the bias is not on purpose. The scout might have more bias due to instinct more than anything else. Whether the scout is male or female, there will be slight unbalance. The male tends to think that men are better, and females tend to believe that women are better. 

Thank  you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-04 11:49:38
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Anthony Tai: Please don't put any new contentions in the last round; it will make it unfair for the both of us. Thanks
HanFeiziStudent: Of course
HanFeiziStudent: Are you against feminism? Yes or No.
Anthony Tai: I'm neutral for it; I just don't believe that women are equal in some areas to men (physical)
Anthony Tai: Why do you change your profile pic like every week/
HanFeiziStudent: Point of clarity, how is a personal profile picture related to this debate?

Return To Top | Speak Round
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte (PRO)
I won't be able to finish this debate in a way that I would like and I don't have the time to type a quality closing statement either. I would like to thank my opponent for debating. Next time, we should shorten the reponse time because this debate went on for a month or more. 

Anyways, voters read the debate and come to your own conclusions. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for participating.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-14 11:37:28
| Speak Round
Anthony TaiAnthony Tai (CON)
Wait wut you mean you are just going to give up on your last one? You stated that we had too long of a response time, yet you don't have the time to make a proper response? That hardly makes any sense, but I will just have to settle with this. This means that I just wasted my time; that's incredibly obnoxious. Also, why do you change your profile pic like every five days? It's not like too many people actually notice.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-02-15 06:39:19
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte
Are you not participating in the cross examination?
Posted 2016-02-17 07:08:02
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte
Who are you?
Posted 2016-01-26 12:45:01
Ashish BharadwajAshish Bharadwaj
yes
Posted 2016-01-26 06:41:12
True Capitalist AcolyteTrue Capitalist Acolyte
Are you participating in the cross examination?
Posted 2015-12-28 23:55:38
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-02-25 10:10:43
BifurcationsJudge: Bifurcations
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:
This debate really suffered from a lack of analysis even when only considering the rounds where a case was presented. Each side had the beginnings of good arguments but a lack of ability in extensive justification and then being able to prove the impact of your argument. This means that as judges we are left to weigh the harms v benefits ourselves and it is preferable for debaters to prove the conclusion of your own case because we can credit you with winning that argument much easier.
I'll go through the debate as it happened and explain what i felt happened in the debate which justifies the decision I gave.
So the opening arguments were a little sparse but from Pro i get this:
-That the goal of feminism is equality between men and women and unisex sports fits that goal because men and women are competing in the league equally.
This is a good start but I'm really missing an explanation of what equality on sport is. Is it 50/50 gender split on teams or is it counting the successes of individual athletes. What you present is the idea that simply having the ability to play in the same league means equality has been achieved.
Con provides this:
-celebrating would mean celebrating rights denied
-women are still discriminated against in sports
Both of these claims are presented without substantiation at this point. The first argument given a lack of analysis to explain it seems unrealistic. Celebrating the end of slavery didn't mean we were celebrating the fact that slavery had previously existed but rather that we had moved on and now people had more freedom. The second point you explain in the next round so I will deal with that then.

At this point both teams present ideas that could be interesting and clever but with a lack of explanation or analysis as to why they are true they are really just assertions. So no one has yet provided an argument that they can win with.

In the second round (and third) the analysis improves greatly. From Pro I understand this:
-Feminists should celebrate women succeeding especially in uni sex sports because this challenges the patriarchy
-Women can succeed in uni sex sports. The example of Ronda Rousey.
I think this does a much better job of explaining why it is beneficial of feminists to celebrate uni sex sports and also why as a feminist you would want to celebrate it. However I am struggling to see the full impact and therefore the full benefit of this idea. How much of a challenge to the patriarchy is this? What will that mean for further equality? I am left believing that it will possibly be a good thing and something that challenges the patriarchy seems like a sensible thing for feminists to celebrate. Your next argument shows the issue with presenting an example without first having fully analysed your point. Why will enough women do well in same sex sports that we can celebrate the success of the gender rather than just the success of a few individuals? Presenting an example without first explaining that in unisex sports men and women would get the same training and funding and that means that with equal opportunities women will do well, means that your example can be side stepped as happens in this case.
From Con I understand this:
-women might not always be successful
-people have biases towards genders
-scouts have these biases which makes it harder for women to be selected if a scout perceives them to be less capable
This is a decent presentation of how biases that exist will be used to limit the success of women in unisex sports. This undermines Pros idea that unisex sports challenge the patriarchy enough to get rid of all biases within sport.
I am left with then some women will succeed and some won't. Con does a slightly better job of explain why it would be the general situation that women wont succeed due to biases which suggests that even if they are capable of doing so they might not get the opportunity. But again this is a judgment call on my part because neither side provides this analysis. So just narrowly con is winning after round 2/3.

The next round is the last one I took into consideration because there was essentially no discussion of the debate after this point. So for the last round I understand this from Pro:
-Con's argument opposes what feminism stands for and is therefore wrong
-"we can't embrace a bias while arguing for fairness and equality"
This speech was unfortunate because you end up conceding con's case. Your first point suggests that there was a misunderstanding of con's argument. Con says that biases exist at the moment and people will use those to make it harder for women to succeed. By saying the argument is against feminism doesn't tell me why either bias won't exist or won't hamper women succeeding in sport. Or why celebrating unisex sports will do enough damage to the patriarchy to overcome biases. Your second argument says that if bias exists in sport then feminism cannot support that sport which means you concede con's case because you have disproven the existence of bias.
From con I understand this:
-It is hard to detect individual bias in scouts and the bias is instinctual
On some level this might be true but surely if a scout promotes ten men for every one woman that might be an indication of bias. Yes bias can be instinctual (latent) but to make this argument you need to prove why this will continue to happen, why it should go unchallenged and what the harm of that is in much greater detail. It does go unchallenged though as both parties stop engaging with the debate.

At the end of that I believe that biases exist and this makes it harder for women to succeed in sport because of this and when it goes unchallenged and is then conceded I have to give the win to con.


Feedback:
Like I said both participants suffered from a lack of understanding of how to build a strong and influential case so my feedback is the same for both.

The first thing to consider is what makes an argument persuasive.
Proving that an argument is true seems silly but this is where many debates can be won and lost.
Give definitions and explain why in the majority of circumstances your conception of the idea is true.
For example it would be useful to explain on proposition why the goal of feminism is equality between men and women. This seems ridiculous but it can be challenged by con presenting a different definition such as feminism is about the advancement of women irrespective of our position in relation to men. This becomes important in this debate because to understand why feminism should or should not celebrate unisex sports I have to be convinced what the goals of feminism are.

Once an argument has been proven to be true you have to prove why it is relevant and important to the debate.
You can give the most amazing analysis about why women only leagues are good but if you don't explain what that has to do with the debate it comes less persuasive because I don't understand why that argument furthers your win in this debate. Again this seems silly but if you don't explain the relevance you leave it up to others to assume the relevance of the argument and you cannot guarantee that people will be able to do that. It is a simple thing to do that improves your chances of being understood and therefore more persuasive.

Now the argument has been made it must be shown that there is a harm or benefit produced. If I understand that this argument will lead to a benefit for Pro then it is persuading me that Pro should win. If it is proven that it leads to a harm by Con then that is persuading me that con should win. For example if Pro proves that unisex sports damage the patriarchy because it presents the idea that gender is independent of success and it is then proven that this is important because feminism works to limit the effects of the patriarchy therefore something that achieves that goal should be celebrated, pro can then go on to explain in detail what the benefits on unisex sport undermining the patriarchy is. For example, boys are less likely to leave the girls till last when picking teams in gym class because they see that girls can work with them in a team efficiently. This means that girls get more respect in gym and are more likely to pursue that as a career etc. The more benefits/ harms you can prove lead directly from your argument the more likely you are to persuade me that the you won the debate. Again these benefits/ and harms should be proven to be true and important if they are to be the most persuasive. This makes it more difficult for the other side to rebut your arguments and disprove your benefits/harms.

Next: be comparative. This means that you take your argument that has been proven true and relevant and you compare it to the alternative presented. This was seriously lacking in this debate and is a really useful skill to instantly improve the persuasiveness of an argument. For example Pro may analyses that women can succeed in sport and Con may analyse that women can fail in sports. Presumably the real situation is that some women will succeed and some will fail. By comparing your arguments to your opponents you explain why your argument gives the most realistic out comes for the majority of circumstances. For example, Pro may prove that equal training leads to equal opportunities which means women and men are likely to succeed in equal amounts. Con can be comparative and say equal opportunities do not just come form trying but rather being rewarded for that success by people like scouts. These people have inherent biases that exist because there is still a stigma that men will always be better at sport than women. This means that even if a female athlete could succeed she is less likely to be given the opportunity to do so therefore less women will succeed because of a lack of opportunity. By comparing two arguments and proving that in general your case is likely to be the realistic outcome your case is more persuasive.

Finally you can give an example to nicely round off your argument. It is important to put the example at the end because it has the most chance to be persuasive there. If you build a case that is true, important, believable and comparative then your example solidifies your argument. If the examples used first and the argument built up around the example it is easier to dismiss the whole case. This is because there are many examples and counter examples to each debate and an example can be easily side stepped as an anomaly or not representative of the general circumstances. If people believe your analysis then an example gives you the credibility of knowing what you are talking about which adds to the persuasiveness but only once people believe what you are saying to be true. Be careful with examples as well. Like I said they are fairly easy to dismiss and a debate full of counter examples is really no fun at all. To avoid these problems you must explain why your example represents the conceptualisation of the idea you want to prove. Essentially, explain why your example is relevant to your argument.

This should be a good start to providing a clear and persuasive argument for you winning the debate.

You can then build up your post in a clear format for example:

Short introduction to speech.

1. Title of first argument
then provide the analysis, comparatives and examples to win the argument.

2. Title of second argument
again provide analysis, comparatives and examples to win the argument.

Summaries what you have proven and why that means you should win.

You are typing this out not speaking it so you have the opportunity to read over your work and make sure it is as good and as clear as you want it to be.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2016-02-26 22:55:20
JD BaringJudge: JD Baring
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:


0 comments on this judgement
2016-02-27 01:45:23
condeelmasterJudge: condeelmaster
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:
Con forfeited twice, but Pro seemed to concede on round five, so this won't be taken into account.

Both debaters gave just a few arguments to support their positions. Also those arguments weren't so justified or refuted. That leaves a great part of the work to the judges :(

On one hand, Pro contended that since feminisms seeks for gender equality and unisex leagues would increase the equality, feminism should celebrate this.
Con objected that this leagues wouldn't increase equality because society is biased towards men, so the discrimination would still exist.
Pro responded that as feminists are for gender equality, that bias wouldn't exist. But Con easily refuted this, showing that not everybody is or will be feminist.

On the other hand, Con contended that unisex leagues shouldn't be celebrated because it's a simple privilege women should have had. This argument could have been dismissed effortlessly, because every achievement towards gender equality has been celebrated by feminists, so this shouldn't be different. However Pro didn't mentioned that, and left this argument without rebuttal.

The debate also went into the discussion if men and women are equal, which wasn't related to the debate.

At the end of the day, Pro gave one argument that was refuted and Con gave one argument that wasn't refuted. Then, my vote should be for Con.

Feedback:
Both debaters have to enlarge their arguments. When making a case for or against something, you have to give several reasons. Giving just one is taking the risk of getting that reason refuted and loosing the debate.
Also more organization would be ideal. Headlines, paragraphs and that sort of things make the speech easier to read and understand.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2016-03-16 01:32:20
Alok KumarJudge: Alok Kumar
Win awarded to: Anthony Tai
Reasoning:
Very well said anthony.Females have equal rights in our society, and this is a fact which cant be denied. But,alas, not everyone is a believer of this fact. Untill and unless hardened rules are made in order to create a platform for unisex sports.

0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 5 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 3 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29