girls rugby

but surely if someone has a passion for something that they love, they should be able to play? 'b. Women will be chosen as mates according to their testosterone levels as well' would it be so bad if woman were chose as mates according to their testosterone levels? My opponent drops all of my arguments and decides to hinge the debate on two points, one, that women being chosen as mates by men for their testosterone levels is not bad. Two that passion is good reason for action. 1) My opponent gives no reason as to why choosing women according to their testosterone levels would not be bad, but as I had previously stated, social norms exist to protect organisms in a social order, in this case by filtering male genes according to the who has the most testosterone, and women by who has the least. This argument flows through the debate as a major harm created by affirming the resolution. a. To be sure, girls should not play rugby because it would mean a shift in decorum that would be detrimental to the future of our species. b. We already are attracted to aggressive genes in men, and civil diplomatic genes in women. This social norm is valuable to the state of the world. According to Steven Pinker experimental psychologist, linguist and author, violence has been decreasing per capita since the creation of permanent settlements. c. I believe this is because in order to protect the species while living in droves so closely together, we adapted customs and culture that would allow us to be co-operative and healthy. These customs have preserved the peace and been passed on for that reason. d. One should not think lightly of a social shift, we establish what seems to the individual to be absurd customs because that is how we have evolved. 2) Passion is good reason for action. a. Yes passion stirs and it should be quenched, but if the survival of yourself, family and species is a priority, passion should only be considered a variable when asking whether or not one should do a thing. b. Passion leads one to act rashly and ignore reason, when depended on solely to motivate action, one will find themselves in a dangerous place due to throwing precaution to the wind. c. In this case the decision impacts more than just the individual, the individual should take into account all possible factors in making their decision. d. I concede that one should do what makes them happy, but suggest that they should not ignore the fact of genes, social structure, future IQ, and increased violence. 3) My plan was not a policy action to ban women from playing rugby, but a suggestion that women should not play rugby. a. All should be equal under the eyes of the law, not because all are equal, but because we are all equally different, and should be allowed to carry out our one and only lives without unnecessary intervention from the government. b. Nevertheless, the impacts of shifting the norm that dictates and has been dictating the way we measure the genes of men and women in society, last longer, and are of greater magnitude than the impacts of not playing rugby. c. Surely there are better sports that do not involve violence and masculinity that a girl could get involved in, debate is one of those.