Mixed-sex dormitories should be the only dormitory type permitted at higher education institutes

My opponent in effect has reverted on his stance that we need to worry about promiscuity. As such this promiscuity argument was a Red Herring, and I ask the voters to carefully consider this when they vote. Additionally, bringing up a point that people may abuse the system is moot as people drive their cars to fast as well, but no one is asking to ban cars. Basically, any system will get abused but that is not a good reason to dismiss something that is beneficial for society, even if a few people are doing something wrong. I am no longer actually sure what my opponents point is when he says “As for parents with "traditional" values, while they can seek private housing, this reduces their child's chances of socialising with his/her friends. ” This is exactly why I say that mixed-sex housing should be the only type allowed as it increases socializing. In effect by arguing for socializing my opponent agrees with me. Additionally, if a parent is worried about promiscuous behavior then they should never let their child out of their house. Maybe my opponent needs to elaborate what a compromising situation is as even meeting someone in the philosophy section of the library could be considered compromising. Should we stop students studying philosophy next? I am not sure how my opponent pointing out the fact that Facebook and Microsoft were formed by males is relevant, as this debate has to do with roommates that should be allowed to live together (mixed-ex) and not have in the past lived together (uni-sex). I think if anything, that my opponent acknowledges this point about societal benefits shows that he agrees with my argument. My opponent then goes on to point out groups of friends are dominated by one sex etc. Yes, this is true as men and women are isolated. This is the reason why I pointed out that the current system of separated sex dormitories is not beneficial to a society where men and women are meant to mix. In a fully functioning society men and women should be able to work together to advance the society. By living together in the same housing this will force people to make theses connections that are good for society. Next my opponent has attacked the argument I gave for the use of bathrooms by different sexes, but no where does he say it impossible that the system cannot work. As such my opponent conceded this argument for functionality of my proposition. Let me point out here, this argument is not about bathroom use, so pointing out that people should have a choice and then saying I agree by quoting me from the debate comments “live in a private residence of campus” is false. I am saying if someone does not want to adhere to this system they can live off campus, however they do not have this choice on campus. Additionally, they should not then complain about isolation as one of my opponents arguments states. Regarding the men and women are equal in everything physical argument, i. e. whether women or men are stronger. This really is irrelevant to the debate so I will drop it. Additionally, I do not understand why my opponent brings up the argument from round two where I said “people you are in contact with is increased by 100 % if we consider a 1:1 ratio of women and men in the world”. While being in contact I agree does not make you friends, it does improve the chances and this is the reason I made the statement. Just consider the Big Brother or Survivor television series, people make bonds when they are in close contact. Its human nature. Regarding private higher education institutes, I agree a private institute can do what they want. However, what they want does not make it right. For example, if a University is uni-sex then this is not beneficial for society as laid out in my arguments. In the same way if we allow this, we should also allow said universities to discriminate based on race as well. After all there is no difference if we use the same line of reasoning. This is why laws are instated by the government. We should remember the government acts in the best interests of society and my arguments show that mixed-sex dormitories are in societies best interests. To elaborate on the government doing what is right for society. The government has acted in the past for the rights of women by allowing them to vote. Now some people argued that allowing women to vote would be a bad thing, but as women are part of society the government has done what is good for the total society (men and women) and as such allowed women to vote in the face of opposition. This means the government can enforce this rule to create a healthier society even if it is a private business. Lastly, my opponent has said I need to “pro must give a reason why one sex dormitories should be banned. ” Needless to say I have supplied arguments which have not been rebutted and so my opponent needs to supply the evidence that my arguments are flawed, lest they forget that BOP is shared in this debate. In this debate all my arguments stand uncontested, and my opponent has changed his stance on multiple points. I have shown that mixed-sex dormitories can provide benefits towards society in getting rid of sexism and gender inequality by forcing people to associate more with the opposite sex. This model is not only good for society but also good for the individual. I hope readers of this debate will see the strong and valid arguments I have made and vote accordingly. I hand the debate back to my opponent for closing statement.