Is softball good for girls

I accept. Resolved: Is softball good for girls? Because PRO is affirming, he bears the entirety of the burden of proof, and must be able to prove that softball is objectively good for girls. Note that he doesn’t specify a certain subset of girls, but merely “girls,” generally speaking. Therefore, he must be able to prove that softball is good for all girls. If he fails to meet this burden, I win by default. In order to prove that softball, or anything, is objectively good, he must be able to prove the following: P1) Softball has X, Y, and Z qualities which yield A, B, and C benefits for girls P2) A, B, and C benefits are objectively good for girls C1) Therefore, softball is objectively good for girls P1 involves creating a criteria for objectivity—how we can readily gauge whether something is objectively good. Without that criteria established, you vote CON, because nothing can be objectively good. Even any benefits that PRO would cite would become subjective valuations on what is good and bad, and we wouldn’t have a basis to weigh the benefits and costs. PRO must provide us with that framework, or he loses this debate. P2 involves a link to the resolution—how does this impact girls? Why does it apply to all girls? What if we are dealing with nerdy girls and bookworms who aren’t the least bit athletic? What if their comparative advantage—i. e. , what they are good at, and can do most efficiently, and thus produce the most good to society through doing—is not in softball, but in writing? It would be a disservice for them to waste time playing softball, because the opportunity cost—or the cost of that is which is foregone—is the multiplicity of benefits from writing that far outweigh the costs. Further, in the case of girls who aren’t the least bit athletic, softball would not be good for them: they are likely to be hurt, or discouraged, or to be bullied by teammates. C1 is establishing the resolution, but if any part of P1 and P2 falls, you vote CON. I will now address PRO’s opening arguments. PRO first claims that softball is good for girls because it keeps them active. In the absence of a framework for objective evaluation, you throw this out right off the bat, because we cannot gauge whether staying active is even desirable or objectively good. Second, he doesn’t prove how this is the case for several reasons. First, girls can stay active by several other means; why is softball the correct choice? If they were more active doing something else, and that produced a larger benefit to them and to society, their comparative advantage is in doing that other thing, in which case softball cannot be objectively good, because the foregone cost is far too high. Also, who is to say that softball will actually keep these girls active? They could merely laze around and refuse to take the game seriously, which is especially true in the case of girls who aren’t athletic—for which this would not be objectively good. He then says that this will keep girls “away from staring at their phone non stop. ” First, this lacks the framework I mentioned earlier. Second, he hasn’t proven either this is a harm or that it exists, or that even if it exists, that it is undesirable. Third, he doesn’t prove how softball actually stops this. What if girls merely use their phones will playing softball—again, not paying attention to the game because they aren’t good at it? In this case, there’s an additional harm because failure to pay attention could result in getting hit in the face with a softball, which is obviously undesirable not only for the physical pain it will cause that girl, but for the medical expenses both she and her family will incur. The resolution is negated.