Single-sex education

If you ask me single sex education and both sex education is equally worse.. I studied in single sex education school for a year and didn't like it. Now I am studying in both sex education school and didn't like it either.. Too much to handle in both schools..

What?

I sent you a debate request. My counter argument goes against Single Ed, but goes a step further.

Okay, then PM me your response

I can address you directly, just not in the comments. I've learned that it isn't beneficial to argue in the comments of my debate.

Okay, if you don't want to address me, that's fine. Farewell.

It's not you that I'm concerned about.

I'm not voting, so there's no conflict here.

I'm pretty sure that the creator can't censor you Omar.

Can't speak to you because the creator of this debate said so.

Okay.

I can answer you to the best of my abilities, but I would prefer you vote before I take you on in a comment section debate. I don't want anyone viewing this debate to conflate these comments with the debate itself.

After looking at the data, I see some problems.

1. While it shows differences in the genders, it does not show any data that specifically shows that co education is the reason.

2. The data for single education schools does not account for the fact that most single education schools have better funding because most of them are private.

3. The differences between the genders shown in your data does nothing to suggest that separate curriculum or methodology was required between the genders. At the most, it MIGHT imply that we should use the same curriculum, but expect different results. Which would be an argument for grading them differently, which I'm not 100% opposed to depending on how it's done.

4. The data does not account for the differences of learning within one gender. Allow me to elaborate. The key point here is that both sides learn differently, therefore, we should separate them. But not every girl learns the same nor does every boy. So if we're to stick with your logic, we should separate the boys and girls into further sub categories and what we end up with is each student having their own personal teacher, because everybody ultimately learns differently to some degree. This is the key flaw in your logic. You're assuming that different learning style means we should separate them. But that doesn't follow. Once we know that people learn differently, we can let their scores reflect that. Since the curriculum is always the same for all genders, then it makes more sense to keep them in the same schools and just grade them according to their learning needs. Once those needs are understood, it would be easy for the teachers to find more inclusive ways to present their curriculum. You could say that your method does the same thing, but mine will be better because I don't have the logistical mess of synthetically segregating all the children and building a bunch of extra schools (because you know how people love to pay for that)

1. my first statement is true, it says "tend" not "always"

2. The implications is that I'll give it a chance if it's data. Also, his argument could have been good enough by itself. The only reason I said that is because he absolutely insisted on resting his argument upon data. So that's why I said what I said.

3. It doesn't matter who gives the opinion. Even Stephen hawking had bad opinions. I don't listen to the professionals because of their opinions. I listen to them when they have hard data. There's nothing wrong with that. To listen to somebody's opinion merely because they experts is fallacious.

>>1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.

Why didn't you say that instead of saying "I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.".

>>2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.

You said you are "willing to give you data a chance.". This implies that you have to actually try to make an effort to even consider data as a way of finding out if a point is right or wrong.

>>3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.

The problem here is that even the distinction that you made that random news articles is too general. There are papers from professional's in their specific field like political commentators, economists etc. To say an opinion of an economist is not greater than the opinion which I am assuming is a non economist implied by this "If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent." is bad. A doctor gives his professional opinion on how to best treat you. A random person on the street is trying to sell you snake oil. You have implied that there opinions are the same even though one is more credible than the other. If this is not the case you clearly have shown the lapse of judgement to opinion pieces which are written by professionals in the specific field they are talking about.

1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.

2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.

3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.

>>Hmm. I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly.

Wait what?
You accuse me of not effectively getting my point across but you tend not to even accept data.

>>I do accept hard data. So I'm willing to give you data a chance.

What? So basically it takes you time to even consider data to be a substantial way to make a point?
Do you do this with science when they provide evidence of the existence of the black hole? You would have to second-guess yourself and get out of your comfort zone.
If you can if you were being consistent what is the difference between data and sources?

You were asking for evidence before making those claims but now you are pretty much saying you tend to dismiss sources. Why even ask for data when you tend to dismiss it anyway?

Hmm. I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly. I do accept hard data. So I'm willing to give you data a chance. I shall respond in the future. Maybe we could formally debate this.

Apologies for taking 20 hours to respond, but better late than never I suppose. My proof that it's bad for education is the statistical benefit on single-sex education cited on the acer website among others.

I try to avoid infinite regress to my best abilities. Every claim I have made is justified by empirical evidence of one form or another.

I highly suggest that you and Wrick-It-Ralph should have the same debate, because both of you put great arguments.

All you've gotten to is a dynamic. Where's the proof that it's bad for education? You're not connecting the dots.

I never waived it off, it's just self-evident that when you introduce a separate factor the dynamic changes. Female-to-male interaction is beneficial in many circumstances (I would be a fool to deny that). It's just not beneficial in the circumstance of a young learners school environment.

I've demonstrated it indirectly with several sources already (I can provide more), when I showed academic achievement increases for boys drastically along with female motivation to pursue STEM or previously stereotypically non-female activities.

Even if I granted what you just said, that just gets us to a change in dynamic (which you waved off by saying it didn't need a further explanation)

Please show that the change is unproductive to studies.

Single sex education is diminishing. You're fighting a losing battle.

Learn from the past.

Read source 1, page 2 (listed in round 3). Or the entire thing, that's up to you.

For a 'demonstration of why it works': When a boy is paired with a girl the entire social dynamic changes, this change is self-evident and shouldn't require further explanation. There also comes into play the factor of Developmental Psychology; as it turns out, boys and girls behave in different manners (boys aren't generally as proficient verbally, for example), so it's easier to tailor the lesson around these differences and avoid/reduce harmful stereotypes.

Overall, I think what's more important is whether it does work better. Furthermore, if that is the case, does it harm the boys or the girls and in what way?

"I've demonstrated the merits of my case, at least adequately relative to my opponent. If you feel otherwise about the topic you can challenge me to a debate, because as always, I am open to a challenge. "

Nice dodge. If you don't want to explain, just say so. Don't tap dance around.

"I'm not convinced cutting off their penises would prevent distraction or be beneficial in any regard. There is also the obvious ethical/moral implications involved. Overall it's not analogous, as I'm not proposing anything which violates their autonomy (as you would put it). "

I agree, as I agree that your thing doesn't prevent distraction either. You haven't demonstrated why it works. You do realize that frat houses have the highest rates of rape offenders in the U.S. right?

Your idea is old and played out. It's been done before and that's why we know it doesn't work. Your reasons for wanting it are ultimately arbitrary and border on sexism.

Either state the reason, admit you don't have one, or admit you won't tell me and be done with it. I could care less about debates. I prefer truth and discussion. The debates are just a change to force people to read my opinions, lol.

"This debate specifically" refers to this specific debate, meaning this opponent and this debate, not the topic. Clearly, I value discussion on the topic, if I didn't I would never have created the debate.

EDIT: I was also referring to my own justification (in the debate/on the topic), not his. Quite a misunderstanding/miscommunication there.

The response to your argument

I've demonstrated the merits of my case, at least adequately relative to my opponent. If you feel otherwise about the topic you can challenge me to a debate, because as always, I am open to a challenge.

I'm not convinced cutting off their penises would prevent distraction or be beneficial in any regard. There is also the obvious ethical/moral implications involved. Overall it's not analogous, as I'm not proposing anything which violates their autonomy (as you would put it).

I only need to prove single-sex education is better than the proposed alternatives (what was that Winston Churchill quote again).

Nice hand wave. Telling me what my best argument is. If you knew what the actual best argument was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Who cares if boys get distracted by girls. Boys get distracted by farts and their own penises. You gonna take those away too? You have no real foundation for your argument.

You're just saying X because it makes Y better. You haven't demonstrated this to be the case. You haven't demonstrated that it's the only way and you haven't demonstrated that X is necessary for Y to exist at all. You're just making an is/ought statement which means you're defeated by Hume's Guillotine.

In the future, I would suggest you don't enter a debate or discussion thinking you know all the rebuttals or that your position can't be answered. You're gonna end up like mustardness. On the forums writing nonsense pseudo sentences.

Single-sex education isn't referring specifically to sex-education; even if it was, I don't think this is incredibly valid. Having females in a sex-ed class wouldn't change the curriculum/understanding of the curriculum. If anything, I'd imagine it would be quite distracting for the boys.

Round 3 is probably the best you're going to get out of this debate specifically, so I would look at that round for better justification.

So, I understand that claim, but could you elaborate on how segregating the classes actually helps other than just asserting it. If I tell a teenage boy everything about female sexuality, that would be helpful, same goes visa versa for a girl. Segregation is more likely to cause rape due to lack of understanding.

It isn't a matter of necessity, it's a matter of benefit vs detriment. It's clear that coeducation isn't as effective as single-sex education in nearly every regard. The only real objection I've heard to this stance is that it 'causes gender stereotyping' or 'doesn't prepare them for the real world.'

Of course, both these claims aren't justifiable from an empirical or logical perspective.

Oh I see. You want to separate them based on gender for the classes. I don't see the point. Where's the necessity for doing this?

So wait. Are you arguing to get rid of the genders?

Are you still interested in this?

The first argument I put did not support my arguments, so please discard that/

Why else separate sexes, except to prevent "intimacy"?

If you would prefer, I could recreate the debate with 10k character limit. I think that would be a fair compromise in terms of length.

Not really, intimacy isn't a direct concern of mine.

I agree with you on this.

I'd take the debate if it was three rounds instead of five and the character limit was somewhere around 5000. A potential 150 000 characters are simply too time-consuming.

Homosexuality is very rare, so it would be a minor concern.

I assume that the point of single-sex education is to avoid *ahem* intimate relationships.
Unfortunately, that won't work, because homosexuality has allowed us to transcend the borders of trying to separate those who would participate with each other in sensual activities by keeping males and females apart.