EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
9900

That single-sex schooling should be encouraged

(PRO)
WINNER!
8 points
(CON)
0 points
cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
This is for the WODC. Good luck to my opponent! BoP is shared. Proving it should be encouraged doesn't means it would be mandatory. All I have to prove is that it would help one student alone, and I win the debate.

Case 1: Proven Intellectual Benefits In Single Sex Schools

Students have shown benefit when participating in single sex schools. For instance, look at the difference between single gender school and public school! (1)

Decile

Co-ed

Sex: Boys

Single

Sex: Boys

Co-ed

Sex: Girls

Single

Sex: Girls

1

21.4%

41.5%

25.5%

40.4%

2

27.9%

30.4%

34.9%

57.7%

3

35.6%

43.1%

41.4%

67.7%

4

39.7%

49.3%

52.9%

58.1%

5

46.0%

56.8%

58.6%

63.2%

6

50.3%

57.6%

60.6%

68.9%

7

54.7%

59.5%

64.9%

76.6%

8

59.6%

68.7%

70.8%

75.5%

9

64.4%

69.3%

75.8%

81.5%

10

68.8%

80.9%

77.0%

88.5%

Avg

48.3%

65.6%

58.0%

76.0%


A quote from the article about the graph.

"It is very clear by the above chart that both sexes academically benefit from a single-sex education. Studies show that women suffer from a stereotype threat in math and science, meaning that in the fields of math and science women are more apprehensive to perform due to their perceived inferiority to men. Perhaps that is why girls at my high school were so confident in their work, there were no boys to do better and perhaps this is why women are always found to do better in single-sex school environments."

End quote. 




Here is yet another graph, (2) supporting the benefits of single-gender schooling. As you can see from this graph, the percentage of male proficient students in Co-Ed compared to the percentage of males from single-sex schools, double in single-sex schools.
Here is a quote from the article.
" In a research study, done in London, it was shown that single sex male schools allow young men and boys to express their emotional side better than co-ed schools. Boys are more likely to move towards art, along with dance and music, instead of simply conforming to the stereotypes that are perceived in co-ed school districts. Also, in single-sex schools, classes are more structured towards the males’ learning style, rather than having to work with both genders (Williams).


End quote.

A quote from my third source, addresses a research study done in London. (3)


"Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

According to long term studies of children from around the world, students achieve more and learn better in single sex schools.

An Australian study of 270,000 students found that both boys and girls performed significantly higher on standardized tests when they attended separate schools. During an experiment in Virginia in 1995, 100 eighth graders were separated just for math and science courses. Almost immediately, the girls began to achieve more, become more confident and participate more often in class.

In 2001, a British study conclude that nearly every girl regardless of her ability or socioeconomic status performed better in single sex classrooms than co-ed ones. The study of study of 2954 high schools and 979 primary schools showed that while boys at the lowest ends academically improved the most in single sex schools, single sex education was particularly beneficial to girls. Every one of the top fifty elementary schools and top twenty high schools in Britain are single sex schools." 


End quote












I WILL ASSERT THAT STUDENTS DO BETTER ACADEMICALLY IN SINGLE- SEX SCHOOLS, THAN CO-ED SCHOOLS!




Case 2. Less Teen Pregnancies

I know you may be puzzled, but think for a minute. The girls can't meet any boys at school. We all know students mainly engage in relationships with students from the same school. It would make meeting the opposite sex harder. Thus, reducing the amount of teen pregnancies.

I WILL ASSERT THAT TEEN PREGNANCIES WOULD REDUCE IF A STUDENT WENT TO A SINGLE-SEX SCHOOL!

Thank you! I hand the debate over to con!








1.http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa12/2012/10/does-a-single-sex-education-make-you-smarter-1.html
2.http://www3.decorah.k12.ia.us/~brunscatrina/Single-Gender_Education/Pros_and_Cons.html
3.http://www.crchealth.com/youth-programs/advantages-single-sex-schools/


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-19 21:52:40
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Preview

I thank PRO for his opening arguments. I would like to establish the points I plan on arguing for this debate. While my arguments may change, develop, or be buffed, I would like to put forward a clear basis now. Pending circumstances of the debate, anything is possible. My case is divided into the following contentions.
A. Polarization of social classes
B. Educational benefits of co-education
C. Organizational alternatives to single sex schools
D. Historical findings of "separate but equal" (with PRO's permission, I would like to use the United States as a basis)
E. Basis of gender vs personality 
F.  Single sex education is illegal (upon permission to use the United States as a basis)

Contention 1: Polarization of Social Classes 
It is important to note that polarization has long been the bane of society. When we polarize two groups, we see notable changes in how communities function. As I will show later on, this has been proven in history as well. Let's start with a few handy effects of polarization. 
A. Encouraging division among social classes
1. Increased social inequality
2. More social discrimination 
I would like to proceed to elaborate on these points. In future contentions, my premises will be and red, and explanations in green
A. By taking a social group, and dividing them into different sects of society, the government is openly encouraging the division of two groups. 
1. Encouraging the division of two groups is government supported polarization. As history as shown, when two groups are divided, one will always become more dominant than the other. This is because equals cooperate with equals. If we take one child and call him a male, and another child and call her a female, we are letting them grow an affinity and cognitive bias  for their own gender. This leads one of the two to cooperate, eventually leading to the formation of a dominant gender. This dominant gender, influenced by an affinity to its own sex, will use its dominant power to help itself, at the expense of the other sex, whom it does not have an affinity for. Social inequality will always develop, but encouraging even further polarization only serves to make the gap widen.

2. When the socially dominant class formulates, so does discrimination. While all social classes may not embrace discrimination, there is always sub-sections of larger groups, in this case gender, whose affinity will grow to the point of openly accepting superiority. When the government supports the increase of polarization, they are also supporting an increase in a "superior" mindset.  A "superior" mindset, is overall, a discriminatory mindset. If such a "superior" mindset grows large enough, then the people will ultimately suffer at their expense, setting us back to an age long past. 

Contention 2: Educational benefits of co-education
While I adhere to the oppositions contention that single sex schools produce overall higher test results, there is one important fact that PRO has omitted. Most single sex schools are for females. Which is interesting, because single sex male schools actually produce lower test results than female single sex schools.
A. Patterns show that females are the cause of PRO's statistics
B. Benefits of having females mixed with males 
On to the elaborations!
A. Here are several studies which affirm this contention
Sources:
B. In one study, it was shown that males actually do better in classrooms with females in them. The logic behind it is definitely solid.
If a student goes to school with trashy people, the student will develop trashy traits. If a student goes to school with stupid people, that person will have a harder time progressing his/her education. When a student is taught around smart students, would it be unreasonable to assume that the student would develop a smarter education? Having females increases the probability of that happening.

Contention 3: Organizational Alternatives to Single Sex Schooling
There are ways to replicate the effects of single sex education, without actually polarizing the sexes. Here are two...
A. Specialize the curriculum to recieve the benefits of single sex education, without the harms of polarization
B. Find new ways to enforce the rules, thus, preventing the harms of cross-gender sexual relations
Elaboration
A. There is evident harms to single sex education. Whereas in a single sex school, the conditions can't be reversed, in a co-education school, they can be remedied easier. Allowing for the tweaking of a curriculum is a better alternative to supporting polarization.
B. PRO affirmed that single sex education would reduce teen pregnancy. I agree for the most part, but a well enforced school can mitigate the effects. As a side argument, it is best for teenagers to gain sexual experience early on, so they are better equipped for adulthood.

Contention 4: Historical Examples of "Separate but equal"
There are also a couple historical examples of PRO's proposal. Needless to say, they didn't end well.
A. Last years of Apartheid South Africa
B. Early 1900's in America (black separation)
C. Australia aboriginee separation
D. Iraqi "sectarian" schooling

Counter Proposal: Personality Schooling
[P1] Single sex schooling is of the assumption that genders have objective traits
[P2] Gender does not imply objective personality
[C1] Single sex education is flawed
Counter Proposal
[P1] Schooling based off of personality doesn't polarize large groups
[P2] Schooling based off of personality achieves the same things as single sex education
[C1] Personality based education is superior

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-20 02:53:54
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
The Csar: I have conceded to all your points, while also showing how they can be utilized in co-education without the harms. Did you find any flaws in the three reversals presented?
The Csar: Another important question that I need to ask. How exactly does single sex education provide better education? You have shown statistics, but no elaboration on any of them. Is this a third factor fallacy?
cooldudebro: First, I would like Con to clarify the first question.
cooldudebro: A main reason that single sex schools do better than co-ed schools is the girls don't focus on boys in class. They actually focus on the material. It helps boys because, as your point states, boys are not as smart as women. Therefore, discrimination is probable to happen teachers
cooldudebro: from co-ed call on girls more for questions, answers, ETC. Boys also aren't distracted by the girls.
cooldudebro: You seem social division to urge that this would cause based on gender. However, I would like to ask you how you are 100% certain that this will cause a superior sex, and lead to the other sex suffering? I also would like to re-inform the viewers that this isn't if it should be mandatory, but encouraged.
The Csar: You appear to be arguing that polarizing genders is a good thing. You haven't actually proved why it's bad for genders to learn/focus on each other
The Csar: If you can do that, I can answer your questions
The Csar: You mistook my arguments. I stated a dominant sex would form, with a sub-section thinking they are superior. An alpha will always develop in a class system. Classes are unavoidable.
cooldudebro: Focusing on each other during school is going to lead to distractions which lower test scores. As for learning, there is still sex education at single sex schools.
The Csar: We can mitigate the effects of polarization by not purposefully causing division
cooldudebro: This is what is already happening in everyday households with men.
cooldudebro: Please clarify the question
cooldudebro: It is also trying to happen with the feminist movement.
cooldudebro: To some degree.
The Csar: Did you actualoly prove this point? I provided a study that shows girls help improve male test scores
The Csar: One question and one answer please
cooldudebro: Please show me the link.
cooldudebro: You had studies that proved girls scored higher.
The Csar: One comment at a time please. Give me a second
cooldudebro: You also avoid the fact that statistically, both men and women perform better at single-sex schools.What is your answers to the multiple studies I brought forth explaining why kids do better in single-sex schools than co-ed
The Csar: This is for asking questions, not making arguments. Give me a second to find you that link
The Csar: Here is a PDF. Read page 4, boys engagement. Men are more active and vocal in learning when females are present
cooldudebro: I'm not making arguments. I'm asking you a question. What do you have to say about my case that prove test scores are better?
The Csar: I think that is attributed to females. Most single sex education schools are female, an we have numerous studies showing females do better in school. The higher test scores are a result of being female only
cooldudebro: I would like to argue that this link is in-valid, as it comes from a co-ed school. Not independant researchers.
The Csar: Okay, I will find you another link. Hold on for one seccnd
cooldudebro: You neglect to acknowledge the graph that shows that women in single-sex classes do better than women from co-ed schools.
The Csar: Here is another PDF, but says females benefit as well from having males in their classroo
The Csar: There is an error when I post PDF files, which duplicates the post
cooldudebro: This is why girls do better in school than boys. Not they do better than single-sex female schools
cooldudebro: Saint andrews is a co-ed school. I would argue that this link is in-valid.
The Csar: This debate isn't regarding why females do better than guys. Your premise is that single sex education produces higher test results, not females. I dismissed that premise based on a third factor
The Csar: It is actually a college, and this was a paper
cooldudebro: It's hilarious that all your sources on this matter is from co-ed schools. Exactly, the college is co-ed.
The Csar: So that dimisses the provided studies and logic. You can dismiss a source, but not the facts. I'll find you another source, Give me a second
cooldudebro: I know, and my graph shows that girls in single sex schools do better than girls from co-ed. Same with boys. Before we go any further, I want you to address this.
cooldudebro: When they all are probably bias because they are from co-ed schools, then yes, I can dismiss them.
The Csar: This study shows that females and males get the viewpoint from the opposite gender in classroom, improving learning expierience. Not from any college
The Csar: Admin, there is a PDF file error
cooldudebro: It's like having an abortion debate and having your source being www.abortionisright.
The Csar: I provided you a non-bias source. If a source is well cited, then the information is valid
The Csar: Okay, on to your question. I conceded this point, while also arguing that there are alternatives. I also argued that the effects of polarization mitigate the effects of higher test scores
The Csar: As a side note, test scores don't indicate higher GPA. Single sex schools are also private (illegal in the USA), so I would attribute your stat to private schooling rather than a co-ed vs single sex
cooldudebro: This is about confidence, not test scores.
The Csar: You can't build confidence if you never let kids overcome it. School is about teaching kids. I would affirm co-ed teaches kids to overcome sexual inconfidence
The Csar: Keeping males and females apart creates sexually and socially awkward children
cooldudebro: give me a sec.
cooldudebro: You say single ed schools are just like private schools. Yet, public schools out-do public schools in test scores while, single-ed schools score much higher in test scores than public.
cooldudebro: What is the link for?
The Csar: I conceded that point in my arguments. I also proved that mitigation occurs when we compare test scores and social polarization
The Csar: Why do you keep shoving conceded points back at me?
cooldudebro: Re-phrase your sentense please
cooldudebro: also, you link's sorces are from 2005
The Csar: The dangers of social polarization outweigh that of higher test scores.
cooldudebro: *sources
cooldudebro: And your reasoning?
The Csar: Why does the date of the source matter? Did this issue somehow evolve?
cooldudebro: No, but we have more advanced science.
cooldudebro: It's like saying a report from 1988 is going to have the same validity as a source from 2014
The Csar: How do test scores indicate higher intelligence?
cooldudebro: When students do good in test, it means they understand the material, and they learned it.
cooldudebro: Why do you even need to ask that?
The Csar: Unless circumstances have changted, the logic is confirmed, and the information reliable. Studies are meant to show patterns. A patter observed in 1988 is as valid as a patter observed today
cooldudebro: My studies are from this time, so I think mine have more validity.
cooldudebro: Also, I'm still waiting for your reasoning of social polarization and the danger of it
The Csar: I have to ask it, because your premises aren't connecting. Private schools are customized to make sure that child succeeds. Whereas public schooling gives challenges that the student must overcome
cooldudebro: And your source for this is where?
The Csar: Intelligence is the measure of the "Abillity to learn", Public schooling makes children learn........ how to learn. A lot of private schooling is simply cramming information
cooldudebro: Again, not private school, single-sex schools
The Csar: PRO, cross examination is for asking questions. All your comments should either be answering a question or asking one. Disputing sources can be done later.
The Csar: Single sex schools are private
The Csar: The two are synomous. You can't have a single sex school without it being private, so of course private schooling vs public schooling will come into play
The Csar: One comment at a time please. I have provided 2 reasons why polarization is harmful. Increased inequality and sizable intolerance
cooldudebro: Now that is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one. I have shown co-ed doesn't have a connection with private school test scores, and you still say they are the same. I can if the link was brought up in cross ex
The Csar: Single sex schools are private.
cooldudebro: How does this apply to single sex-ed
The Csar: Co-ed can be private as well, so I give you some merit
The Csar: Which weighs the question, how does sexual polarization increase intelligence. You're saying that it gives less things for students to focus on. I claim it gives more challenges to overcome
cooldudebro: Exactly. Not only that, but you continue to assert that single-ed is private with no reasoning backed up sources
The Csar: Single sex education is illegal in most nations. Especially in the United States, where it is ruled illegal by constitutional amendment
cooldudebro: Which begs the question, why is women test scores higher than male test scores? You say challenge, they see hormone raging teenagers.
cooldudebro: This is not exclusively for the USA.
The Csar: Why females score better on tests isn't substantial to the debate. The question is when will females and males learn to cooperate, if not school, the place for learning
cooldudebro: Give me the amendment.
The Csar: I gave you the federal case. Is that not enough for you?
cooldudebro: The real world. Do schools teach children to communicate?
The Csar: Yes they do.
cooldudebro: Amendment please
cooldudebro: What class do they teach to get children better socialization skills.
The Csar: Amendment 14, established to protect racial segregation in school systems. Same one used by the American board of education against kentucky
cooldudebro: Key word racial. What else?
The Csar: The amendment uses the word gender as well
cooldudebro: where? What you posted didn't use it.
The Csar: It specifically staates "that no state shall deny "person
cooldudebro: no state shall deny what?
The Csar: Person is a derivative to show that all men and woman are protected
cooldudebro: again, where in the amendment?
The Csar: A person is a dummy term to imply all genders, races, and creeds, regardless of social status or wealth. If they are a person than they are granted equal protection, equal rights, and equal oppurtunity by the US government
The Csar: Racial segregation was ruled unconstitutional. Gender segregation was ruled unconstitutional. Can you do it in private schools, yes
cooldudebro: Okay, connect it to the ammendmant. Give me a sentence from the link you gave.
cooldudebro: Where was it ruled unconstitutional?
The Csar: Do you read any of my sources
cooldudebro: I do, but I'm trying to give you my speediest responses, so when I see it is really long,I'm going to ask you to give me the sentence in there.
The Csar: Women may pursue single sex education, but public schooling can not give single sex education.
The Csar: You should read my sources and not ask me to do trivial things
cooldudebro: Where does this state that?
cooldudebro: Do it, or your argument is in-valid. It's your source. You should know it. If it is in there, it should take about a minute for you to find it.
The Csar: The 14th amendment? It doesn't state a case in particular, but it is the constitution. It has been interpretted by the courts that "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional
The Csar: Cornell law is invalid?
cooldudebro: What I'm saying is, give me the sentence or I will assume it has nothing to do with gender.
The Csar: Or are you referring to the exact text from an exact court case
cooldudebro: Read my last sentence.
The Csar: Do you know how constitutions work? They are broad, and interpreted by the courts. The constitution doesn't say word for word "single sex education in public schooling is illegal". That's what the courts interpreted.
cooldudebro: Then give me the sentence. Please do.
The Csar: The amendment was specifically created to end "separate but equal"
cooldudebro: Give me your source.
The Csar: Ugh, there is no sentence that says that in the constitution. That's what the courts ruled
The Csar: Fine, I'll give you several
cooldudebro: Give me a sentence from the source, not another source,
The Csar: This site
The Csar: IT DOES NOT SAY IT IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE COURTS INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT!!!
The Csar: This debate is not about the United States. Further questions are repetitive and trivial, as whether the united states has it illegal or not is irrelevant. This is about populace encouragement, not government
cooldudebro: Then give me the sentence. :)
The Csar: What sentence? Are you intentionally trying to sound stupid here? Read the 2 court cases I have. If you're to lazy to read the court ruling, then I don't know what to sa
The Csar: *say
cooldudebro: Just a sentence to summarize he case to generally state the fact.
The Csar: The court ruling says it right there. Brown vs Board of education. "Segregation in the school systems is unconstitutional"
The Csar: Stop repeating yourselves. These questions are trivial and irrelevant to the debate. I answered your question a dozen times, and am sickened that you wont read the 5 sources provided.
The Csar: Very simple. Scroll over the link, click it, and read it to the end
cooldudebro: Great! You finally did it! We are not focusing on he USA. I GTG to bed I'll be back on tomorrow. Can you stop postin till I get on next? Thanks!
The Csar: ......................
cooldudebro: Plus, This is kinda hectic so I want to take a break.
cooldudebro: Good night!

Return To Top | Speak Round
cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
"I would like to thank my opponent thus far. I must keep this short, because my dad is in the hospital. So, if I drop any arguments inform me. DON'T make them count as dropped arguments. My assertions are in blue, while my facts are in green.

Rebuttal of contention 1:

What my opponent is trying to assert here, is that if there is single sex schooling, then social polarization will occur between genders. I would like to define social polarization as it states.

"Social polarization is associated with the segregation within a society that may emerge from income inequality, real-estate fluctuations, economic displacements etc. and result in such differentiation that would consist of various social groups, from high-income to low-income." (1)

I will assert that social polarization is already happening.

You may be puzzled, however, I will clarify. Such things as racism, gender in-equality (feminist movement is proof). All prove social polarization is already happening.  

In cross-ex, my opponent argues a dominant gender will form. However, I would like to assert that this will not happen, let alone because of single-sex schools.


In racism, you don't see a dominant race forming and waging wars against every other race. I don't see a dominant gender forming because of test demographics. From what I gather, Con is stating that the dominant gender will treat the other gender like slaves.

I want Con to explain why single gender schools will be the direct cause of social polarization between the two genders. I also want Con to explain why this time will be different from racial polarization.


Rebuttal of contention 2:

Con wants you to phase out the fact that I compared both female single-sex and female co-ed. The single sex school girls came out with much better grades.




Con also avoids the fact that boys are still in single sex schools. Compared to single-sex schools, boys improved drastically!

Con states he has a study that confirms boys do better with girls around and refers you to his links. However, look at his links. There is no link confirming his statement.


Rebuttal to contention 3:

Tweaking the curriculum for every single student is hardly the answer. What Con is saying is that, if you're dumber, you get a special curriculum. Is this fair? No, this is going to lead to more bullying and social polarization. I would also like to assert that teachers don't have the class time to deal with each student individually.


Rebuttal to contention 4: 


Please make this clear how apartheid has to do with single sex schooling.

Rebuttal to Personality schooling:

If you go under Con's logic, then this can cause social polarization too. Under his logic, a dominant personality will form. 
I would also like to refute this sentence by sentence.

"[P1] Single sex schooling is of the assumption that genders have objective traits"

Where is your source?

[P2] Gender does not imply objective personality

Again, source.

[C1] Single sex education is flawed

SOURCE!!!!!!!

[P1]Schooling based off of personality doesn't polarize large groups

Yeah, it just polarizes smaller groups with the same population.

[P2] Schooling based off of personality achieves the same things as single sex education

Source please?

[C1] Personality based education is superior

You haven't proved that.



Thank you for reading this far! I hand this debate over to Con!


1. http://www.answers.com/topic/social-polarization

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-08-23 22:05:09
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Rebuttal One: Social Polarization
I don't get my opponents rebuttal. He is simply stating that something asserted as bad, with supporting evidence, is already happening. I already conceded this long before he mentioned it in the previous round. Clearly stating that we should stop polarization from happening further. As far as the judges should be aware, this contention  was conceded and dropped. 

Rebuttal Two: Refuting the Graph
While prepping for this round of the debate, I decided to further investigate my opponent's so called graph, which he is basing his evidence and case on. The graph is really quite silly, and shouldn't be taken seriously in the slightest. The graph comes from a site known as "Why single gender?".
1. The graph should be ignored, as it comes from a biased site, specifically promoting single schools
2. The data is uncited, and there is no offsite link telling as to where they got this data
3. Since the graph isn't even numbered, we can assume isn't real.

Rebuttal Three: Do better in schools
My opponent is simply repeating himself. I conceded in my Round One that students in single sex school, have done better in the past than in co-ed, but I gave two reasons, both of which were dropped, to explain this. My first premise asserted that it is private schools which caused kids to improve, and since all single sex schools are private, my case was reinforced. Even if we consider his biased and unsupported data, private schools still perform better grade wise. 
The second premise was that "girls" are the one's receiving better grades, as the wide majority of single sex schools are based for girls. 

My opponent dropped my argument that girls improve boys education at school. 
Here are the requested sources my opponent has asked for, although I opted some because it was my opponent who I was asking to prove points for.
The rest I ignored because the points made following the premise's were dropped.
Explanation of culture defining traits rather than sex: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-CultureandPersonalitySchl.html
Personality based schooling in Germany (craft schools are at secondary and higher levels): http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-29/what-germany-can-teach-the-u-dot-s-dot-about-vocational-education




Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-09 00:37:08
| Speak Round
cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
My assertions are in blue,while my facts are in green.

Rebuttal 1:

My opponent obviously didn't get my rebuttal. I clearly stated that social polarization is happening now, and that just because of single gender schools, won't cause humanity to collapse!  He is simply dodging the rebuttal, because he can't win it. He then drops my challenge which is clearly written as such,

"I want Con to explain why single gender schools will be the direct cause of social polarization between the two genders. I also want Con to explain why this time will be different from racial polarization".

Rebuttal 2:

My opponent claims that my source is invalid. Notice, he never gives you a reason why it's from a biased site. For example, how is it specifically promoting single-sex schools? My opponent fails to answer because he can't. If you voters still aren't satisfied, here is another graph my opponent has no problems with.

Decile

Co-ed

Sex: Boys

Single

Sex: Boys

Co-ed

Sex: Girls

Single

Sex: Girls

1

21.4%

41.5%

25.5%

40.4%

2

27.9%

30.4%

34.9%

57.7%

3

35.6%

43.1%

41.4%

67.7%

4

39.7%

49.3%

52.9%

58.1%

5

46.0%

56.8%

58.6%

63.2%

6

50.3%

57.6%

60.6%

68.9%

7

54.7%

59.5%

64.9%

76.6%

8

59.6%

68.7%

70.8%

75.5%

9

64.4%

69.3%

75.8%

81.5%

10

68.8%

80.9%

77.0%

88.5%

Avg

48.3%

65.6%

58.0%

76.0%


(1)
Rebuttal 3:

What are these magical dropped arguments you speak of? You neglect to give any examples of the dropped arguments.

Let me note that the first article says it indeed existed, however, it does not tell you any proven studies that showed students benefited from it.

The second article is only for people that want hands on learning, and want to work in factories and, for the most part, ONLY FACTORIES. The article says so itself. There is one rare instance of a chef, and that's it.


Overall, I feel like I have proved my point, and my opponent has not enough information or facts to fill his BoP while I have no problem filling mine. My opponent dropped many arguments such as my entire round 2 rebuttal 1 and rebuttal 4. This means you must award a vote for CoolDudeBro!



1.http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa12/2012/10/does-a-single-sex-education-make-you-smarter-1.html

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-09-19 01:59:28
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
BlackflagBlackflag
Awesome vote admin. Only wish I could say that through a "judge" comment ;)
Posted 2014-09-26 01:18:28
BlackflagBlackflag
Awesome vote admin. Only wish I could say that through as "judge" comment ;)
Posted 2014-09-26 01:18:18
ArcTimesArcTimes
It's supposed to continue because the rule was not activated.
Posted 2014-09-13 01:13:30
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm pretty confident you can keep debating
Posted 2014-09-12 19:46:12
9spaceking9spaceking
what an insanely long debate.
Posted 2014-08-27 17:15:48
nzlockienzlockie
No way this debate gets finished before the cut off date.
Posted 2014-08-27 11:39:26
cooldudebrocooldudebro
Whoops. I meant compared to co-ed schools. Sorry! I needed to post in a hurry!
Posted 2014-08-23 22:08:37
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-09-19 18:39:00
9spacekingJudge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Reasoning:
Csareo does not use solid evidence to prove his points, and due to his additional forfeits in comparison to cooldude, Cooldude has more statistics that prove that, indeed, single-sex education works better than co-ed due to higher grades; and the polarization argument was easily refuted because it was non-unique, already happening without single-sex schooling.
Also, Csareo rebutted only one graph and forgot to rebut the other. :P

Feedback:
Don't forfeit. As a super cool rapper (WAIT, that's me!) once said...
*Plays super cool rap-beat with music in the background

One debater, the one I didn't choose, didn't do absolutely anythin'
He got slayed by such laser, like a poor moose--he obviously tried everythin'
The winner is such obvious here, easily spotted as a donkey's rear
It's like the loser drank a gallon of beer, he's got a twisted unrealistic sneer

These people don't know how to respect or even wisely manage 'er time
It's always conduct point lost, the winner may taste victory but I taste lemon lime
This is happenin' so often it should be treated by the mod's as a grave crime
The commit-tors should be "rewarded" like in Brain Sludge--painted with slime

Please don't go and ask me for any advice, I can't be bo'ered with such li'l lice
I'd rather go eat a bowl of poisonous rice; you forfeiter can't be even be saved by Jesus Christ
You really don't fit the description "intelligent mind", compared to it you're really like a tiny mice
You may think your short rounds are "concise", oh sure they are, and you're just being nice

I shake my head at such incompetence, I really want to print this debate out and crumble it
Don't take any more debates from now on hence, you'll just be killed again, smashed like a poor kid
Your forfeitin' is such terrible I feel like vomitin', stompin' my feet on your rude red word carpet
So just don't do it--it belongs in the Town of Wrongitin, I'll just sell your ff's to the black market
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-09-25 21:55:50
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cooldudebro
Reasoning:
First of all, forfeits and people assuming they'd one thanks to them really marred this debate. It definitely made the debate weaker for both sides. The round 1 CX was really epic though.

Pro had BOP, and showed intellectual correlation with single-sex schools, and something about teen pregnancy that I didn't fully understand but sounded legit to me because I went to a single-sex school. It was a decent case with an OK set-up that could have used a little more focus on the second argument if it was to hold a lot of staying power in the debate. Otherwise the second argument is just a waste of characters. I felt like pro should have done a bit more to elaborate on his arguments also, rather than simply quoting from his source material. Hint: learn to paraphrase.

Con countered with a 6-pronged set of arguments and should have probably opened earlier with rebuttals. This all led up to a counter-plan which should have done more to show how that counter-plan actually solved for the harms presented in the arguments con presented. Con also forgot to justify 2 of the 6 arguments they put forward. Con further failed to structure or signpost these arguments. One of the four arguments con did put forward (organizational alternatives to single sex schools) was pretty clearly part of con's counter-model.

In fairness, those arguments were brought up in the CX a bit, but con was generally convincing and pro generally agreed that CX is not for making arguments, so I ignored them.

Con did argue that a polarization of social classes would occur, which didn't make much sense to me, but indirectly I was convinced that a polarization of genders might occur, as in "ha! Girls didn't go to school with me thus they must be inferior!" This point was surprisingly well backed-up with analysis. Con also showed males would be smarter, and name-dropped 4 terrible examples of segregation gone wrong.

At this point, thanks to a depth of analysis, I'm pretty confident in saying that intelligence was the most important thing in this debate. Pro wanted to maximize it, while con wanted to ensure some measure of equality between the sexes. As a lesser point, the issue of polarized genders was important too. I felt like teen pregnancy entirely fell to the wayside as a justification.

I need to explain something now about BOP that's really important in deciding this debate. It is ultimately irrelevant who presents the better model in a model debate. Only the affirmative has any onus to even present a model. If that model stands, they win. This is regardless of whether con also has a better model. Con's onus must be to destroy pro's model, and if they fail at this, then they have failed at the debate.

As a judge, I tend to be generous enough to ignore any statements by a debater that actually harm their own case significantly, but I feel this is important to point out: when con conceded all of pro's arguments and made it their strategy to present the superior proposal at the start of the first CX, that would have typically cost them the debate for that reason. The point of a counter-model strategy is not to try to outdo the other team. It is to shift the onus on to you to "prove a negative". It hopes to catch the aff off-guard when they might be expecting to defend their case, and are forced on to the attack instead. I thus ignored con's entire model, which was a big chunk of their case. Unfortunately it did nothing to counter the proposal put forward by pro, which misses the point of a *counter* model entirely.

This is unfortunate because the CX also had the best clash of the debate, focusing primarily on sources. I felt both sides were able to throw a bunch of links around that confused me sufficiently that I really didn't know what to think. It was probably a tactical mistake of pro to encourage con to find more evidence to support con's position, as ultimately even if con's sources were flawed, more sources tends to generally give more opportunities to muddy the waters somewhat, which pretty much always works to the neg's advantage.

I felt like it was legitimate for con to say social polarization would increase under pro's model regardless of whether it was happening already. I think what pro was driving at with this is "why aren't places that have segregated genders for education under the status qyuo becoming more classist if this were true?" or something, but I never actually saw the argument made that directly. A stronger line of attack might have been to question the relevance of the anecdotes - comparing separated classrooms to the systematic oppression of a people, for example, probably requires a higher standard of analysis than merely making the comparison.

At this point came a great big forfeit from Csareo. Con really needed to hammer his points down hard. And when he did make his argument eventually, he basically told me nothing I hadn't already realized as a judge.

At this point, only pro made one more argument. In effect, pro had one extra speech. I think ultimately this is why pro won.

Pro lost the polarized genders point fair and square. But pro did push the need to be the smartest the hardest, and ultimately I was convinced that this narrative won out in the end. Con didn't keep up the line of why it's important for everybody to be achieving well, and pro was able to keep the pressure on with numbers and (probably meaningless but still fancy-looking) graphs to show why it's important just to have a smarter "average" student. He said it so much that it sounded believably true. Con, on the other hand, was much more sparse even in his own analysis of why equality was important to the debate. Both sides were roughly tied on the question of what exactly the effect would be.

Still, it was narrow. Con had ample opportunity to shift the narrative focus of the argument, or even to increase the importance of the polarized genders argument to the debate.

Feedback:
A combination of 3 things cost Csareo the victory here:
1) Strategy - Csareo needed to tear down pro's case. There's no other way around that. This is a classic case of a counter-model being an ineffective counter and just coming across as another model.
2) Structure - I felt like the case from Csareo needed to be more responsive, better signposted (meaning indicating when certain arguments will come up later) and more consistent (some contentions had much, much better analysis than others). Oh, and don't end up doing less rounds if you can.
3) Narrative - On the arguments front, nice work on taking a unique approach to the topic. Still I would have grounded the debate more in education by talking about social class through the narrative of what opportunities students miss out on under the model. Performing a play by Shakespeare, for example. Narratives on what little Sue CAN'T do will hit home harder than any reference to slavery, because while slavery is much worse, little Sue is easier to empathize with.

There were a good number of faults in Cooldudebro's argument too, however:
1) Sources - Don't get caught up arguing from/against sources - if you can, try to bring in some logic-based rebuttals along with your sources. Demonstrate your evidence. It isn't a source battle.
2) Formatting - learn from Csareo. His formatting was significantly easier to read than yours. Props for effort though. BTW, just because your opponent forfeits doesn't mean you win. Unless it's autoforfeit. Still, you know what I mean ;)
3) Arguments - kind of the opposite of sources - have more of them! Again, learn from Csareo. Csareo didn't actually say very much in this debate but he did have LOTS of arguments so it reads like he actually had a lot. This added more weight to his case.

Overall a pretty good debate with a somewhat disappointing end. 7/10. Good effort. Be proud of yourselves!

As usual, let me know if you'd like further feedback or have questions.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
  • Time for cross-examination: 2 days