Women and Contact Sports

The Resolution: The disagreement about the meaning of the resolution is resulting mainly from our contrasting view of what is meant by “should.” I will go back to my original point about offering different classes based on students’ abilities and interests. To argue against this on the basis that some schools lack funding or could not draw significant participation is to avoid the matter itself. By arguing that something should be done, I am arguing that it is good in itself. If the entire United States were destroyed by aliens tomorrow, it would still be a good idea in itself for schools to offer more classes. Con later equates my claim to the argument that schools should offer twenty-five foreign languages. I would say that they should! The fact that not all schools have the resources to do so does not make this a bad idea in itself. Argument One: Benefits to Women I now better understand what Con is arguing. I will refer him and readers to Rule 2. If contact sports are inferior to life sports, it logically follows that males should not participate in contact sports either. Unless Con can explain why life sports are better for women but not for men this argument is prohibited. Argument Two: Sexism Con makes a valid point in proposing that cheerleading is still considered a women’s activity even though men participate. However, I did not go so far as to say that it would change perceptions overnight or that it would eliminate problems entirely. I would suggest that it is easier for traditionally masculine activities to become gender neutral than for traditionally female activities to do the same. For one thing, males are likely to face more derision than females for violating gender norms. Sports like gymnastics, track and field, and soccer are considered gender neutral even though they were traditionally masculine. I do not foresee men’s powder-puff football taking off in the same way. There is simply no analogy. In the mid 20th Century males dominated college attendance in the United States, but now female attendance has equalized. [1] Positive social changes can occur, and we should take action to bring them about. Furthermore, cheerleading is in no way equal to football. They are about equal in popularity, but football receives far more attention. They are both technically there to entertain the crowd, but it is the football players who draw the crowd and it is their performance that ultimately matters. No one watches the Superbowl to see how the cheerleaders do. Con ignores the point about how women are overtly mocked and subordinated even in “legitimate” sports. The attitudes surrounding activities like “powder-puff” football are too obvious to ignore. Argument Three: Participation Con is right in principle here, but I will note that the example I gave was orders of magnitude larger than his. A vastly greater number of women than ever before are participating in contact sports even in spite of the barriers. If barriers were taken down then participation would increase exponentially at an even greater rate. I have already provided evidence of such high demand. Universities are establishing contact sports teams for women, and participation in high school contact sports is increasing. [2,3] There is strong research and consistent agreement among related organizations to suggest that offering such sports is beneficial. [4,5] Counterargument One: There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports I will refer to Rule 2 again. Con is arguing that we should get rid of contact sports entirely, which is specifically not allowed. It is nonsense to say that this objection applies only to women. In any case, the fact that there is no reason to favor running intensive sports is not an argument against soccer and track. There does not have to be a specific reason to favor an activity in order for it to be productive. That some people prefer certain sports is sufficient. Con compares women’s contact sports to a variety of obscure activities, many of which are not sports. I am not advocating for alligator wrestling (sounds a bit dangerous), but if possible schools should offer even unpopular sports. They are limited by available resources, but in principle as resources increase more programs can and should be offered. Those schools that have sufficient resources should offer contact sports for women. Counterargument Two: Existing Sports Would Have To Be Cut Con equates what is true situationally to what is true in principle. Inability to fund women’s contact sports is not an intrinsic trait of all athletic budgets. One cannot possibly prove that it is a bad idea in principle just because not everyone has the resources to do it now. Consider the argument, “All sick people should receive medical treatment.” That is obviously not possible now, but it is a desirable outcome that we should strive for. Con has presented obstacles that must be overcome but has said nothing about the desirability of the goal itself. Unless Con can show that all schools in the US will never be able to afford these programs, all he’s left with is Title IX. Considering that fact that Title IX is itself criticized for precluding women from contact sports, using it as evidence is a little questionable. [6] If it is a problem then it should be modified in pursuit of the goal. Consider if I had contended that gay marriage should be allowed in the United States and my opponent cited the DOMA in opposition. My argument does not rest on unlimited funding; it rests on sufficient funding. Women’s football is not infinitely low on the list of priorities for the athletic budget just because it is not on the top. It is certainly above golf, bowling, and other less athletic sports of limited and decreasing popularity. [7] Counterargument Three: Life Sports Are Better Con seems to argue that golf and bicycling offer the same athletic experience as wrestling and football. There is an established difference in the level of intensity demanded by these different activities. More importantly, the experience for the athletes is very different, which is why football draws many participants who would not be interested in life sports. Con also creates a false dichotomy between life sports and contact sports. Both can be funded and offered to students. If he suggests that we should drop contact sports and replacement them with life sports, he is in violation of Rule 2. His arguments all lead to the unstated conclusion that we should eliminate contact sports for both men and women, a line of argument that was specifically prohibited. Conclusion: I apologize for not bringing up Rule 2 in the previous round. This was mostly my fault for not recognizing the implications of what Con meant by finite resources, and because I focused on rebutting his misrepresentation of the resolution as a mandate. His arguments for P1, N1, and N3 are against contact sports and not female participation, which is prohibited. Con has gone to great lengths to dodge the actual issue. His only legitimate objections are logistical problems that are not universally existent. The goal is for schools to establish and promote programs for women. There are financial and social barriers to this, sure. Overcoming these problems is part of what is entailed by the resolution. Positive changes do not come about if we let the immediate obstacles convince us that they are impossible. Sources: [1] http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu... [2] Round 1, Source 1 [3] Round 1, Source 2 [4] http://www.allacademic.com... [5] http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org... [6] http://www.outsports.com... [7] http://online.wsj.com...