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

Thanks to my opponent for their response. Regarding Bennet91's statement I am not sure whether to reply to it or not. It is attributed, but it also comes from the comments section of the debate. However, so as not to lose argument points for a failed rebuttal I really have no choice. This argument presented by Bennet91 is invalid for both reasons presented below. Number 1, it says some parents have "traditional views against co-habitation (even if they are not in the same room).”. This ignores the fact that cohabitation is legally defined as “A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.”.(1) This means that the couple has to actually be involved in a relationship that resembles marriage i.e. the same room and sexual relations. If this is not happening this cannot be classified as cohabitation. Additionally, I need to point out here that my opponent in fact needs to provide verified statistics to show that males and females are incapable of sharing the same room without getting sexually involved for this position to be valid. As such the bold appeals to emotion such as “promotes fornication”, “morally compromising situation”, “At least gays being together won't cause college pregnancies” or “a "friend with benefits" situation. ” are all ludicrous statements that have zero backing and imply that males and females cannot be friends. I am sure if any of my female friends read this, they would be horrified to think that we have to have sex as that all mixed gender relationships are capable of. Secondly, when Bennet91 says “a portion of parents pay for their child's college education” this is true. However, if they feel that strongly against an equality and society beneficial system, they are free to seek private housing where they can embrace their “traditional” sexist? values. Counter Arguments My opponents response to my equality argument is that “"20 % of the population is attracted to the same sex" doesn't mean they are entirely gay.” So? What does this have do with anything, I mean sure some of these people have bi-sexual orientations? In fact if we bring in bi-sexual orientation this value will probably be higher than 20%. I really have no idea why my opponent points this out and elaborates on it to such an large extent, as this was a statistic I brought up which I even said could be the normally accepted 10%. My opponents critique of my argument for society is that meeting potential mates and creating long lasting business relationships can happen at a “more respectable time, it does not have to be while people are in their dormitories”. However, this ignores the fact that Facebook and Microsoft were created by roommates/dormitory mates.(2,3) So essentially by forcing people to share close quarters two businesses with a net worth of 122 billion dollars were created.(4,5) Now, while some of these relationships have gone sour the overall benefit for society would not have existed if these relationship did not happen in the circumstances they were forced to happen. Regarding the criticism of shared bathrooms. This would be a valid criticism if shared bathrooms were not already getting legislated on a large scale.(6) Additionally, as adults I am sure that the males and female can come to an agreement on when and if they they want to share the same bathroom as happens already at the University of Maryland.(7) My opponents criticism to my eradication of sexism argument start of with a false statement “this is less of an issue in most European countries.”. This is Con putting words in my mouth, I in fact talked about the USA and Britain as just two examples where sexism is less prevalent. He then goes on to attack my argument that this could never happen in Saudi Arabia as men will mistreat women and says that the only reason that this same situation could work with races was because “essentially race is just skin colour. Gender however is a lot more.” What rubbish, the only difference between men and women is a chromosome which leads to different sex organs and different thinking methods. If race is only skin color, then sex is only breasts. This is just a way for my opponent to avoid my argument which says that by forcing mixed genders to share a dormitory it will surely force men to be respectful of women. This assumption is based on that race example given in my round 2 argument. While my opponent does stress they are not sexist, this does not detract from the line of argument that women are made to look weaker than men. This is not true. Additionally, if a sexist man gets married to a women what does this have to do with the argument? Should I be claiming that some serial killers also get married so we should let serial killers roam free? Rebuttals to my opponent arguments: My opponent says that his position in this debate is “The whole point of my side in this debate is that those "rights" aren't a good thing. ”. when referring to straight people being afforded the same right as homosexuals. This means my opponent needs to prove that discrimination against straight people is morally and legally acceptable. I look forward to this argument my opponent will surely put forward in their next round. In closing my opponents arguments fail as they have no rational evidence based backing to make them stand up under scrutiny i.e. men and women can't be friends or heterosexuals deserve less rights. With my arguments in tact I hand the debate back to my opponent to make some positive arguments that verify his contentions. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.nytimes.com... (4) http://www.celebritynetworth.com... (5) http://www.celebritynetworth.com... (6) http://edition.cnn.com... (7) http://www.resnet.umd.edu...