Single sex education system is better than a co-ed system.

I thank very much for waiting so long. I had to leave for school trip. My opponent deserves admiration for this that He didn't act cowardly. As for the problem of my own arguments, you appeared that you want to use it as advantage against me so I added this to my speech. I'll follow your format of arguments, first your and then mine.Pro's arguments: Contention 1:1.) My opponent stated 1 argument here. He said that " distraction between the opposite sexes is not solely based on sexual lust". The rest was investigating my arguments by disproving my proofs. So I'll start with the first point. As far I remember we were arguing about children who didn't reach high school. But my opponent confused this topic. I brought up argument that children who didn't reach high school aren't distracted until they are older. That argument I've supported by link from same website like my opponent used. Furthermore, I didn't state that distractions are based on sexual lust. For supporting this claim I bring this quote from my first argument: "Thus students aren't distracted until they reach puberty (age around 12-13)". So there is no distraction at all. Pro pointed out statement which I didn't state. Hence I didn't base off any idle speculation contradicted my own sources and my argument that Single sex schools are for very young students totally useless.2.) Pro claimed two arguments here. His first claim was built on that argument that He never claimed that all students are distracted by opposite sex: "I wasn't arguing that all students were distracted by the opposite sex." I would like to share his own argument which he brought up in round 2: "My opponent again brings up my source with the quote "There are many students, who maintain their social connections and still are able to concentrate in a coed school, it really just depends on the individual child"[1], and I am not denying this." My opponent is contradicting himself. My opponent can't defend his claim well and make mistakes. In the latter argument Pro didn't contradict himself but instead of giving proofs He used my argument against me. My task is prevent him from it. I must say he got into deep water. At the beginning I already stated that sex distraction is in co-ed schools: "So in general the distraction in Co-ed schools depends on individuals." So I already said that before. It just proves that my opponent is trying to gather any advantage because there are not the crucial. All people who read this are sure that sex distraction is in co-ed schools. Claiming that it's not would be critical fail for me. But on the other hand Co-ed schools are good for their variety and scope of possibilities. Imagine yourself at Co-ed school do you prefer having good grades or fun, do you want to fall in love as teenager. These are the consequences why Co-ed schools are better. Few advantages can cover one disadvantage.3.) First of all I didn't stated they don't interact all day long. My claim was that they don't interact professionally on job level. The school in general is institution where children learn how to socialize[2]. Single sex schools make gab in this learning. Moreover in future life they can't interact well in job etc. Pro's claim that they get job during school is invalid. Only summer job can give some experience but it is minimal compared to tremendous amount which they learn at school. Neither interacting with parents nor salesclerk can learn how to socialize with opposite-sex because in these situation their social position are others. Learning how to socialize with opposite-sex is the key advantage of Co-ed schools.Contention 2:1.) In this argument we've got into blind alley. Pro speaks about quality of school. But in this contention we are not talking about "the quality between Coed schools and single-sex schools". I'll quote topic of this contention in Round 1 which Pro presented: "Single-sex students perform better than coed students." This actually proves that talking about quality of students not about quality of schools. I still stand up for argument that students who attend Single-sex schools are already good students[3]. Furthermore the ratio is increased by the fact that "many single-sex schools will swiftly transfer out poorly-performing students, thus artificially boosting graduation and college acceptance rates[3]."The rest Pro's argument was about Financial expenses which I suppose related to "Thus they tuition is much bigger". I didn't mean to highlight it as argument just as outcome of the reason why single-sex schools are wealthy.2.)Well I considered that as useless answer from your side so I reacted this way to your only argument in round 2 which didn't bring any argument as well. At the end I linked on the first paragraph where I refute your argument that "it was due to less distractions in school". Your goal was just to use my arguments against me. In which you obviously failed.3.)This argument Pro and I resolved in C1 Sp2. There is no any point to talk about it here.Contention 3:1.) I've read the whole actual source which Pro brought up. Honestly, there is no fact that boys are misunderstood. The only point in favour of Pro is that boys are ill-prepared or disinterested. Merriam-webster says: misunderstand= to fail to understand[4]. Thus I didn't find any evidence that boys are misunderstood by teachers or principals. That article doesn't offer any solution of this problem or cause.My speculation which Pro named as "idle" is logically based there is no reason why to call it "idle. It just supports my argument.In the end I urge Pro to bring evidence of his evidence: "teachers at an all-boys school would be trained to know about and handle the healthy habits of young boys". I assume that this is just as proposal because Pro used words "would be" which is not linked with what in general is. Since Pro presents only proposals his argument is invalid.2.) I have already answer this upper. In that source Pro provided there was any mention of word "misunderstand". Boys simply don't like school and don't want to study. Girls pay attention more longer than boys[5]. This is a matter of boys fancy to study rather than misunderstanding of boys. I again ask Pro for bringing evidence that teachers are taught how to teach, understand boys at school in single-sex schools.3.)I am happy that Pro admitted that boys and girls study differently. In republic high schools are divided into schools which are specialized in Biology, chemistry, math etc and they are coed. In our case boys can choose math and girls language schools. In that case Pro's argument is invalid.Con's arguments:I have 1000 characters remaining as well so I need to be brief too.Contention 1:1.) I like Plato more because He has built origins of constitution and republic2.) I didn't find that quote in any of his books, writings but in this website[6]. Since it is on confident website I suppose it is true3.)I've brought it up because it is one of the most advantages of Coed system. If I want to present my arguments for Coed system I have to bring this up.Contention 2:Yes Finance has to do nothing with degree of excellence at a school. But single-sex schools have to be paid more for teaching boys and girls separately.Contention 3:The source is from teachers network. Writer is teacher so he/she has experience from that field. It includes quotes from department of education, researchers everything what serious text need. I am sorry that I can't support my arguments more but no characters remaining. Thanks for this debate and good luck.[1]http://www.newyorkschools.com...[2]http://voices.yahoo.com...[3]http://io9.com...[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5]http://gettingkidsreading.blogspot.cz... [6]http://www.cathedral-school.co.uk...