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

I waited as long as I could to make this fairer to my opponent, but this is as long as I can wait while still being safe. As my opponent just now added his constructive speech, I'll defend mine first (since all I need to do is keep it standing) and if I have enough text left I'll negate his. Also, I never stated that he had to provide his own, I'm simply stating that as he didn't, all I have to do is negate refutations.my caseContention 1:1.) My opponent claims that I state distraction in the class room is not based on the opposite sexes, however, that was the main point in the first contention (As I stated: These distractions lead to less attention on schoolwork or student participation in classes as students of one sex are trying to impress or date students of the opposite sex, especially with males." [1]), I simply stated that this distraction between the opposite sexes is not solely based on sexual lust. He goes on to state that although there is distraction in early educational classrooms, it's not provided by the opposite sex. However, not only does this completely go against the source we both cited [2], but he does not back this up with any actual evidence. Because he's basing this argument off idle speculation, misquoting of my arguments, and contradicting his own sources, he loses the "1.)" debate, and it shows why Coed schooling is worse than Single Sex,and thus shows that Single Sex schools are better.2.) The first half of this argument states that because I didn't specifically say that every last student in a coed school system will be destracted that it means I was arguing for that point. This is incredibly flawed, because this is only based on my opponent's accusations and no real logic. I never claimed that all students were distracted either, according to my opponent's argument that means I wasn't arguing that all students were distracted by the opposite sex. However, this would mean that I wasn't arguing for either side, which is impossible, and why my opponent's argument is flawed. Because the statement that I'm arguing every last student will be distracted is flawed, you cannot look to that argument. "It depends only on each man whether he wants to impress woman or not. Hence there is option to either study or seeking for new life-partner." This sentence can sum up the second argument my opponent made. He stated that the choice is there for the students to either try to impress the opposite sex or study, and they just chose to impress. However, this confirms my entire argument. I stated that they are distracted from their studies by the opposite sex, and as my opponent just confirmed this in his own words, the entire first contention is proven true. He then brings up the fact that women are better at school, which is completely irrelevant to the debate.3.) My opponent says that this aspect of the argument fails because they don't interact with women all day long. However, teenagers still have jobs (so they know how to work professionally with women), people still talk outside of school (which my opponnent agrees to), and even as my opponent shows they can interact with their opposite-sex parent. The belief that a student at a single-sex school won't be able to interact with a person of another sex is false as they can interact, both professionally and casually, through the world outside of school.Contention 2:1.) My opponent tries to rebut this simply by repeatedly bringing up the same quote, that the students already perform better. I'll assume this means my opponent is unlcear about my arguments. I'll restate them in two points for more clear reading. 1a.) The argument is that the schools are better (and by the definitions it means that they are higher quality) than coed schools. The Con stating that the students there are better academically only reinforces the belief that they acheive a higher grade of excellence, and so it proves the resolution true. 1b.) The rest of his argument is dealing either with the financial expense or with arguments he already brought up in contention 1. Financial expenses do not impact quality in any way (which is what we're debating, check the definitions), and so this argument does not impact the resolution.2.) My opponent doesn't attempt to refute this. he says he already did, but he doesn't say why or how it was negated, nor how it was rediculous. As he's clearly dodging the attack, extend my previous argument, it extends.3.) I already negated C1 Sp2, so go ahead and extend this one as well.Contention 3:1.) My opponent tries to negate this by simply saying that doesn't "think" they are misunderstood. However, I have provided an actual source ([3], if you want to check it again) that proves this happens. Unless we actually allow idle speculation from an untrained source refute entire studies now, this cannot be considered an accurate refutation. He completely drops the point that teachers at an all-boys school would be trained to know about and handle the healthy habits of young boys, and so that also refutes his second atack against Sp1. Because he is trying to overturn an actual source with idle speculation, and because he dropped the part of my argument that deals with the teachers, this attack is negated.2.) I'm not saying that they should, I'm saying that they don't in coed schools.. As for the source, check sources #3 and #4, as I've brought up in previous arguments, which shows how current teachers do not understand boys needs and how it leads to misunderstanding and negative effects for the boys. As I've already shown the evidence, and my opponent misunderstood what I was saying, my previous point extends.3.) Yes, they do study differently, but that has nothing to do with the resolution. If anything, it benefits my side because single sex schools would be able to promote the specific tendencies of each gender rather than lump them in the same school where they have to learn the same way. Because my opponent dropped this point, extend it.my opponent's argumentI only have a little over 1000 characters left, so I'll make this quick.Contention 1:1.) This really doesn't have anything to do with the resolution and is more on a personal point, but Plato wasn't the best ever :) If anyone is, it would be Plato's teacher Socrates, and I personally believe that Aristotle's philosophy was much better than that of Plato.2.) My opponent's quote Plato quote is completely unsourced so we cannot assume it was true. It doesn't sound anything like his writings or even a direct quote. Because this quote likely didn't come from plato, we must ignore it3.) Most of this argument has to do with interacting with the opposite sex, so I don't see why it's brought up again. Just cross-apply my arguments about it from my case (I believe it was C1).Contention 2:Finance has nothing to do with the degree of excellence at a school. If anything, paying more for a better education would reflect the higher quality of Single-Sex. Because it has nothing to do with the resolution, you must ignore this argument as it has no impact.Contention 3:1.) First my opponent tries to refute that distractions will arise from early educational systems because his source says that coed education is the miracle cure. However, this source looks more like a blog than a study, and it has no scientific source or background behind it. It appears to be highly opinionated rather than opinion based. It states that inter-sex bullying will not occur at all, which all of who have been to school know is completely untrue. Because you cannot trust the source, ignore this argument.Unfortunately I don't have enough characters left ro refuteWorks Cited:1.) http://www.debate.org...2.) http://www.newyorkschools.com...3.) http://www.csmonitor.com...4.) http://www.xyonline.net...