Women and Contact Sports

Thanks to Pro for a good debate. The Resolution The resolution could be implemented right away. Schools could “establish and promote” contact sports for women. The way they could do it is to take funds away from sports currently in the athletic program and use them to hire coaches and buy equipment for women's contact sports. The debate question is, should that be done? It should be done only if the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. . Pro contends that the resolution is really some sort of question of principle, and not a call for actual implementation.” One reason we know that the resolution is not a question of principle is that it calls for schools to “establish contact sports, including football and wrestling.” That goes way beyond saying that women should not be denied contact sports, it says that it should be done, regardless of tradition (e.g., the school has a tradition of strong women's basketball) or the desires of the schools athletes (e.g., for some reason curling has become a hot sport locally). . I used language studies as an example of the meaning of the resolution. Pro claim that my example could be interpreted as a matter of principle, not practice. Compare two possible resolutions: . R1. High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote the study of the Serbo-Croation language. . R2. High schools and colleges in the United States should establish and promote the study of the Mandarin Chinese language. . I claim R1 certainly fails, but R2 could be affirmed. There is nothing wrong with the Serbo-Croation language, but schools schools should not “establish and promote” it, because the advantages are not persuasive. R2 is different, Chinese is an important language in modern commerce and is rapidly rising in importance. Arguably it should displace French and some other languages in most curricula. R2 is logically taken as a practical resolution: the argument is that it can be done and schools should do it. Argument One: Benefits to Women If any new sport is established, there will a benefit to those who wish to participate. However, there is a disadvantage to those who are denied participation in the sports cut to establish the new one. Under the current system, new sports are adopted and dropped locally, based upon the school tradition and the interests of the athletes. Pro claims that women's wrestling is growing rapidly under the present system. He offers no evidence whatsoever that women who want wrestling are systematically denied. He has provided no evidence that even one women's football team was desired by athletes, let alone denied. Yet the resolution demands that women's football and wresting teams be established, whether anyone wants them or not. Argument Two: Sexism Pro's primary example of sexism was cheerleaders in football. Pro grants that the advent of male cheerleaders has done nothing to change the perception of cheerleading as a female sport. He introduces two new arguments in this final round that it's a matter of time and that some sports like track and field are inherently gender neutral. So not only running, but discus a shot put are gender neutral? Pro's contention is unsupported. I think the fundamental mistake is at this point being concern with sexism, I would ca it political correctness, in sports. At the time title IX was passed, c. 1970, it was a valid concern that women were not participating in sports. But there has been equal funding for 40 years, and four of the five most popular sports are enjoyed equally y men and women. the exceptions are football for men, and volleyball for women. I say, let the athletes do what they want to do. I argued cheerleaders are really entertaining the crowd, just as football players are entertaining the crowd. Cheerleading is not sexist, even though it appears so to Pro. Pro did not respond. Argument Three: Participation Con argues that many ore women are participating in contact sports, despite the barriers. What barriers? Pro provided no evidence that polar demand to establish a women's wresting team was denied due to the reasons he imagines. challenged Pro to provide evidence of demands for women's football, which he specifically says should be established. He d not cite any demand. Teams are not established solely because there is no demand. Suppose I claimed "Curling teams should be promoted and established by schools in the US." Further suppose that I then claimed this would overcome hared of everything Canadian, and the proof is that curling is growing rapidly despite the barrier of Canadian hatred. Clearly, the argument fails because "hatred of everything Canadian" was never prove to be the barrier. The barrier as lack of interest, no more. Interest rises as those who participate raise enthusiasm. that's the way contact sports for women will progress or not, depending on the enthusiasm of part cants. Counterargument One: There Is No Reason To Prefer Contact Sports Pro invokes Rule 2, that I cannot propose banning all contact sports. At no time did I say or imply that men's contact sports should be banned. I did not propose that women's contact sports be banned. Had the resolution been “Men's contact sports should be further established and promoted ...” I would have had the same objection as with women's contact sports. My argument is that if some extra money is made available for sports, then it ought to be put towards life sports rather than contact sports. Life sports are better because they promote good health over a lifetime. Therefore, a disadvantage of the resolution is that it takes athletics in the wrong direction. Counterargument Two: Existing Sports Would Have To Be Cut This was discussed under The Resolution. Counterargument Three: Life Sports Are Better n R2, Pro seemed to mostly agree that life sports were athletically equivalent, with the reservation that life sports did not tech team play. I pointed out that life sports included soft ball and doubles tennis. In R3, Pro introduced the new argument that contact sports were athletically superior. He cited football as being more intense than golf or biking. Life sports, however, include intense sports like tennis. How intense life sports running, swimming, and biking are is adjustable for age and ability. Those are the triathlon sports, clearly intense. Golf when practiced is more intense than football when not practiced. An advantage of life sports is that they are practiced after the school years. Pro's R3.7 says that golf is declining in popularity with young people, while tennis is increasing in popularity. That's fine, both are life sports. Pro then argues that women's football ought to therefore displace golf as a priority in school sports. The reason given for golf's decline is the high cost of golf courses and failure to develop a version of the sport for very young players. Tennis developed a low cost version for very young players. Despite the decline 1.8 million will take up golf in elementary school alone. Women's football remain close to zero in popularity. Pro offered no data women's football is even growing in popularity. It shouldn't displace golf unless it grows substantially in popularity. The data argues for tennis displacing golf, which it is doing on it's own. . Summary I have no objection to either men or women participating in contact sports. The present system allows that to happen. However, schools should not establish and promote contact sports for women, because doing so necessarily harms existing sports and provides no significant compensating advantages. Pro introduced new arguments and evidence in the final round. that's not a crime against nature, but it's a debate conduct violation. the claim I violated rule 2 was clrly invalid. The resolution is negated.