Women and Contact Sports

The Resolution I accept Pro's rules. Pro neglected to define "contact sport," but his examples of football and wrestling should suffice for this debate. Wikipedia gives the definitions http://en.wikipedia.org... The resolution is that "High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote women’s teams in contact sports, including football and wrestling." So at minimum high schools an colleges are compelled by the resolution to establish women's football teams and women's wrestling teams. This departs from present policy in which each high school and college makes an independent decision as to what women's sports they establish and promote. Whether the school is in Alaska, where winter sports prevail, or Hawaii, where ocean sports are popular, the women should have a football team -- or so Pro contends. Pro's Contentions Rebutted Pro gives no reason why tradition, local preferences, and the wishes of the women athletes should be overridden in favor of devoting scarce resources to a women's football team. Pro offers four contentions, but none support the resolution. Pro begins by reciting past history in which women were prohibited from participation in contact sports. There are currently no such prohibitions, and Pro cited none. If the resolution were that women's contact sports would be permitted, I would support the resolution. That's not the resolution. In fact Pro cites both the existence of women's wrestling and it's increasing popularity. That contradicts his notion that it is prohibited, and it undermines the notion that it cannot prosper without the resolution. P1. Benefits to women. Pro contends that sports benefits women. Sure. I agree. So why does that imply that a women's football team should be required. Men's football teams are not required, and Pro is not contending that those men are not benefiting from sports. So why should women's football teams be required? P2. Sexism. Pro argues that football is perceived as a macho sport. Pro doe not say why having a sport perceived as macho is harmful or how the establishment of a women's football team would cure any such problem. Some sports are considered feminine: synchronized swimming, gymnastic floor exercises performed to music, and gymnastics with apparatus. So, must we compel men's synchronized swimming, and so forth? Other sports like figure skating are perceived as feminine. The women's competitions draw considerably more interest than the men's, despite there being both men's and women's teams. Insofar as such perceptions exist, they do no harm, and having tams for both sexes does not necessarily remedy the perception. Cheerleading is not currently a sport, but Pro perceives it as a girls' activity. Male cheerleaders have been around for some time, but it hasn't changed Pro's perception. Sports need not be contact sports to be perceived s macho. Weightlifting is not a contact sport, nor the gymnastics rings competition. If Pro can find something wrong with a mach perception, then his resolution should be directed at macho sports, not contact sports. I am not arguing that sports perceived masculine or feminine ought to be preserved. My argument is that the decisions ought to be left to the individual schools and the participants. P3. Participation. Pro contends that women's participation in traditionally male sports is increasing. So how does that imply that every school should have a women's football team? Schools should respond to the choices of students, not attempt to indoctrinate them to Pro's way of thinking. If participation is increasing then some traditional sports will eventually be dropped and replaced with new sports. Football is not particularly dangerous, so that is not a relevant concern. "More than half a million people suffered basketball-related injuries last year, compared to 485,000 hurt on bikes and 418,000 injured playing football." http://www.livescience.com... Negative Contentions Here are my negative arguments: N1. There's no reason to prefer contact sports Contact sports have no advantage over other sports, so there is no reason to promote them. The two most popular school sports in Europe are soccer and gymnastics, and they are so popular that everything else is pretty much an also-ran. http://www.youth-sport.net... The popularity is shared by boys and girls. So is there some compelling reason why rugby ought to be promoted in Europe above their current favorites? Pro has the burden to prove there is something better, or there is no reason to force their establishment and promotion. I see no reason. the Europeans are doing fine without a very popular contact sport. In the U.S. the most popular boys sports are basketball, football, baseball, track and field, and soccer. For girls it is basketball, soft ball, track and field, volleyball, and soccer. http://www.livestrong.com... Football, the only contact sport, is clearly an oddity in that regard. Four of the five most popular sports are already available and popular with both sexes. N2. Existing women's sports will have to be dropped to add football and wrestling. Title IX, enacted in 1972, mandates that equal funds be spent on men's and women's sports. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance... —United States Code Section 20,http://en.wikipedia.org... Funds for athletics are tight, but whatever is available is split equally. About 670 colleges have dropped men's wrestling as a varsity sport. http://www.usawrestlingnation.com... Even though wrestling is a cheap sport, especially compared to football, there are not enough participating men to justify the programs. http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com... Football remains popular, especially with high school boys. However, football is also suffering from lack of resources, with programs being cut. http://badgerherald.com... More than thirty major schools have downgraded their football programs or dropped it altogether. http://collegefootball.about.com... If men's wrestling and football are having great difficulties, there is no reasonable chance of them succeeding as women's sports. If the resolution were put into effect, money would be spent in futile efforts to establish and promote women's teams. The only place the money can come from is by discontinuing established popular women's sports. The inevitable result is decreased participation by women in sports. The resolution replaces popular sports with unpopular ones. N3. Life sports are better. If the resolution is implemented, it would attempt to entrench sports that cannot be played in later life. Sports like golf, tennis, biking, swimming, and softball can be played after leaving school. That provides for long term heath and exercise benefits. If any attempt is to be made to displace established sports, it ought to be done with the long term benefits to the participants in mind. I don't think there should be any general mandate, but there is it ought to be towards life sports. The resolution goes in the wrong direction. ------------ The resolution fails because because schools and athletes should determine what sports should be established and promoted, not external mandate. Resources for athletics are limited, so the resolution would displace popular sports with unpopular. Pro has given us no pertinent benefits to the resolution health or participation. The resolution is negated.