100 debate challenge 1: This House believes single-sex schools are good for education

Thanks Con. PrefaceGiven that this is a three round debate, I will be concluding in this round. Also given that Pro was vacuous in this rebuttals, I will attempt to keep this brief. FrameworkPro fails to attack any of the presuppositions I laid out in Round 1, and as such cannot justifiably attack the foundation of the arguments I have made later since I will not have a chance to respond. Given this, we can assume that an institution that performs academically on par or better than co-educational ones is 'good'. Con also drops my points about demonstrating what is good for employees (of single sex educational institutes), and in accordance with the values of society are also important to consider what is good for education. C1. Single-sex schools perform at least on par academicallyPro concedes this point last round, he drops my points that there are areas in which there have been demonstrable improvements to some age bands for some genders in some subjects. Given this to be the case we can accept that single sex-schools perform at least on par with co-educational schools. In the context of the framework I have set (which went unaddressed by Con), I have already affirmed that single-sex schools are good for education and the Judges should vote Pro for just this point. C2. Single-Sex Schools accommodate for a spectrum of social valuesThis argument went completely unaddressed by Con, despite having 2 rounds to do so. As such he drops these points, which should count substantially in my favour in voting. Single-sex schools are still relevant today due to religious and traditional values in parental-choice in where their child is educated. Now I will clear up the crumbs of Con’s case:1. Same sex schools harm girl's educationCon drops his argument here, given that it is based of a study of dubious authenticity and quality, and that the studies I brought forth are many orders of magnitude more comprehensive and general. Con also fails to demonstrate causation even if the statistics were correct, and doesn’t take into condieration tertiary complicating factors.2. Boys suffer increased mental health problemsCon drops his points here that single sex schools causes mental health problems (which I showed were gross overstatements of what his sources actually say). Even assuming his source as reliable, it doesn’t actually demonstrate factors that pain single-sex schools in an *overall* negative light, with positive points of the study balancing the negative points. Con had to resort to cherry picking to make his non-argument. Con also fails to substantiate his presupposition that increased divorce (remember that Con didn’t provide ANY statistics for this) = bad for education. Just how is increased divorce rates a bad thing if that could easily be interpreted such that single gender schooled people are less likely to remain in an unhappy relationship than a co-educational schooled person. Hence will have generally improved well-being in life. We cannot know either way since Con provided no statistics or data to demonstrate that.3. It deprives multi-gendered experienceAgain, the impacts of this are dubious at best, and Con has not attempted to demonstrate them. We are left guessing and imagining by Con what they are. ConclusionIt should be apparent now which case was more objective, and which was better substantiated. So I will leave the rest to the voters.