Women and Contact Sports

His response was extremely strong and I look forward to discussing it. The Resolution: Con suggests that the resolution implies or suggests an external mandate requiring educational institutions to implement certain policies. I would advocate no such imposition and specified neither an authority nor a policy to carry out such a mandate. When I say that high schools and colleges should do something, I mean it would favorable for them to do so. There is a clear and significant difference between the suggestion that something should be done and that it must be done. Furthermore, the resolution is a blanket statement refering to educational instutions in general and cannot be expected to be applicable on a case by case basis. At a school with a graduating class of twenty, it would not make sense to establish a football team. It would also not be effective to offer honors or remedial classes. Still, ceteris paribus, these classes do benefit students. I would suggest that the resolution be interpreted in the same way. It does not have to be universally true to be generally true. Defense of my Case: Con asserts, as is factually correct, that there are no prohibitions against women participating in certain sports. My introduction to the debate is frequently an exposition on the background of my position and my thoughts on the matter, and I did not mean to suggest that it was the current state of affairs. The fact remains that women are passively denied the oppurtunity to participate in certain sports. If there is no women's wrestling team, women do not have the oppurtunity to participate in this sport. They might be permitted to compete against males, but this competition is unfair and has a greater social stigma; both of these factors may discourage women from participating in an activity that could bring them both personal enjoyment and health benefits. The barriers with football are even more pronounced. Argument One: Benefits to Women Con's only argument is that though sports teams are beneficial, they should not be required. The resolution does not specify a requirement. If it is not logistically rational to have a football program, then a football program should not be established. This is true of any program. It does not refute the resolution because this level of strictiness is in no way required. Argument Two: Sexism While Con brings up a number of related cases in his rebuttal, he does not address the matter at hand. I would suggest that educational institutions provide men with oppurtunities to participate in traditionally femenin sports, and I would suggest that women be give more oppurtunities in traditionally masculine sports that are non-contact. However, these issues are outside the scope of the debate. I would suggest that promoting these teams would have an effect on social perceptions. People are feel discouraged from participating in activities that people like them are not normally involved in. They can be motivated to try positive things through the active promotion of oppurtunities for them. [1] Con cannot ignore that fact that the differences between the male expectations in sports and the female expectations overtly suggest that the male role is superior and the female role subordinate. Cheerleaders literally stand on the sidelines of the competition, and powder-puff sports are an intentional mockery of the real game. As the rhetoric of football greats exhorts the roles it prepares young men for, the roles that cheerleading prepares women for are clear. That these attitudes would have lasting implications is blindingly obvious. I would also like to make two corrections to Con's case. Cheerleading is considered a sport in some areas, included the state of Wisconsin. It has clear athletic elements. In any case, the statement that it is a girl's activity is not merely "[my] perception" as Con puts it. It is estimated that 97% of cheerleading participants are female, so to describe this simply an interpretation is bordering on the invention of factors. [2] In addition to this, I am compelled to note once again that I have not suggested that these decisions should not be left to the schools. Argument Three: Participation Once again, the resolution does not say that every school must have a women's football team or that they must be externally forced to. It does not outline a policy or authority. I have contended that ceteris paribus it is beneficial for schools to establish women's teams in contact sports. Con's counterarguments seem to support my case more than his. He says that schools should respond to the choices of students. Well, the 500% increase in the number of female wrestlers in the past decade is a cleary indicater of what students want. [3] He also argues that football is not a dangerous sport, which seems helpful to the cause of promoting access to football programs. Argument Four: Concerns about Physical Limitations This was a preemptive argument on my part. I will assume that Con dropped it because it is not important to his case. This should not be held against him. I will leave it out if he continues to do so. Counteragument One: There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports I agree will Con on this point. However, it's not an effective argument. There is no reason to prefer sports that involving lots of running, yet this is not an argument against soccer and cross country. The resolution implied no mandate, and it certainly implied no requirement to promote contact sports over other sports. Women are already allowed to participate in many of the most popular sports, so it would have been pointless to debate about that. None of this changes that fact that many females want to participate in contact sports and it would be beneficial to give them a chance to do so. Counterargument Two: Existing Women's Sports Would Have To Be Dropped This contention would be true if we assume that athletic budgets are fixed. However, althetic teams frequently do a great deal of fundraising, especially at the high school level. [4] As I have stated ad nausem, no one will be forcing anyone to allocate funds in a certain way. I don't know why Con considers this to be the logical extension of a resolution that states at a certain course of action is generally beneficial, but he uses this objection in every argument. In a situation with tight funds, starting new programs of any kind is not desirable. The fact that men's teams are being cut is not an argument that men's teams shouldn't be established and promoted, is it? It simply means that it is not financially feasible to do so. That fact that we should do something does not mean we must do it in spite of logistical or financial problems that arise on a case by case basis. Programs that can afford to do so should promote women's contact sports. Counterargument: Life Sports Are Better Con makes another generally agreeable point that does not effectively counter the resolution. Contact sports should do not have be promoted at the expense of life sports. However, some people simply prefer contact sports or would be more likely to get involved in them. A girl who would rather play football than swim should be given the oppurtunity. Many of the sports Con provided are frequented used in cross training for contact sports in any case. [5] Furthermore, these sports all lack many of the vital components of contact sports, including teamwork, physical skill and coordination, and competitiveness. One does not gain the same experience bicycling as by being on a Varsity football team. Sources: [1] Economics: The Ideas, The Issues by Jerry Evensky [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.nytimes.com...;(formerly source 1) [4] . http://maineaf.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...