Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New Microsoft Word Document
New Microsoft Word Document
New Microsoft Word Document
Ran
k
Debate Motion
Ran
k
Debate Motion
This House believes reality television does more harm than good
This House believes the internet brings more harm than good
10
This House believes Tennessee is correct to protect teachers who wish to explore
the merits of creationism
11
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile
phones.
12
13
14
15
This House believes mothers should stay at home and look after their children.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
This House would ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games.
25
26
27
28
This house believes parents should be able to choose the sex of their children
29
This House would permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional
sports
30
31
32
33
34
Ran
k
Debate Motion
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
This House believes that parents should be held responsible for their school-going
children's discipline problems.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
This house believes that housewives should be paid for their work
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
This House Believes that religion does more harm than good
58
This House would ban music containing lyrics that glorify violent and criminal
lifestyles
59
60
61
62
63
This house believes that developed countries have a higher obligation to combat
climate change than developing countries
64
65
66
This House would hold students legally responsible for bullying if it resulted in the
victim's death
67
Ran
k
Debate Motion
68
This House would ban teachers from interacting with students via social
networking websites.
69
This House would use torture to obtain information from suspected terrorists.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
This House would ban the use of animals as objects of sport and entertainment
77
78
79
80
This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict
freedom of speech
81
82
83
84
This House believes that music that glorifies violence against women should be
banned.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
COUNTERPOINT
Other studies have found that women in fact are not any better off in single-sex
institutions. A 1998 survey from the American Association of University Women, a
long-time advocate of single-sex education, admitted that girls from such schools
did not show any academic improvement.[1] That they are more inclined towards
maths and sciences is of questionable importance to society as a whole. As the
report noted, "boys and girls both thrive when the elements of good education
are there, elements like smaller classes, focused academic curriculum and
gender-fair instruction".[2] These can all be present in co-educational schools.
Tidball in her research made the mistake of not controlling for other
characteristics, namely socio-economic privileges of those at elite womens
colleges.[3]
[1] Morse, Susan ed., Separated by Sex a critical look at single-sex education for
girls, American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, March
1998.
[2] Lewin, Tamar, All-Girl Schools Questioned As a Way to Attain Equality, The
New York Times, 12 March 1998.
[3] Kaimer, W. The Trouble with Single-sex Schools. The Atlantic, April 1998.
Boys and girls are an unwelcome distraction to each other
POINT
Boys and girls distract each other from their education, especially in adolescence
as their sexual and emotional sides develop. Too much time can be spent
attempting to impress or even sexually harassing each other (particularly boys
toward girls). Academic competition between the sexes is unhealthy and only
adds to unhappiness and anxiety among weaker students. As Tricia Kelleher, a
school principal, argues, rather than girls defining themselves by their interests,
they define themselves by what the boys think of them or what other girls think
boys think of them.[1] Furthermore, John Silber, President of Boston University,
declared in 2002 that his university would prioritize male applications in order to
even up the student composition and ensure the male population did not become
ungentlemanly towards women due to their numerical inferiority. A single-sex
environment is therefore a space where (children) can learn without feeling
pressurized by the other sex.[2]
[1] Kelleher, Tricia et al., Should boys and girls be taught
together, perspicacious.
[2] Kelleher, Tricia et al., Should boys and girls be taught
together, perspicacious.
COUNTERPOINT
In fact boys and girls are a good influence on each other, engendering good
behaviour and maturity particularly as teenage girls usually exhibit greater
responsibility than boys of the same age. Academic competition between the
sexes is a spur to better performance at school. Any negative effects of coeducational schools have been explained away by studies as the result of other
factors, such as classroom size, economic discrepancies and cultural
differences.[1] Furthermore, the separation of boys and girls only serves to
embrace sexual objectification, for they exist for each other only as dates rather
than the classmates they would be in a co-educational environment[2]. Allowing
them into the same educational environment, in part to permit them to distract
each other, is a welcome social development as well as a beneficial learning
curve.
[1] Bronski, M., Single-sex Schools. Znet, 25 October 2002.
[2] Kaimer, W. The Trouble with Single-sex Schools. The Atlantic, April 1998.
Boys and girls develop at different times and speeds, therefore they
should be taught separately
POINT
Co-educational schools attempt to establish uniformity in the teaching of two
groups, boys and girls, who typically learn and develop at different speeds and
using different methods. They do not develop in the same way or at the same
time; boys favour visual processing and do not have the hand-motor control that
girls readily achieve in early grades.[1] It is widely accepted that boys develop
more slowly than girls..thats true at every level of analysis.[2] Furthermore, they
develop physically at different speeds, girls often developing earlier which can
lead to bullying from the opposite sex for those who either over-develop or underdevelop. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, at least in the United
States, elementary school boys are 50% more likely to repeat a grade than girls
and they drop out of high school a third more often.[3] If they were taught
separately and the curriculum and teaching was tailored to their needs, drop-out
rates would not be so high nor as vastly disproportionate.
[1] Gilbert, M. Single-sex schools help children thrive. The Christian Science
Monitor 20 September 2007.
[2] Bronski, M., Single-sex Schools. Znet, 25 October 2002.
[3] Gilbert, M. Single-sex schools help children thrive. The Christian Science
Monitor 20 September 2007.
COUNTERPOINT
Everyone develops at slightly different speeds, however few would advocate
everyone should be home-schooled. Ultimately, the curriculum determines the
mode of teaching, not the gender composition of the class, and the curriculum
can be moulded to suit both girls and boys, faster and slower learners and those
with under-developed hand-motor control. If elementary school boys are being
forced to repeat grades that is a manifestation of difficulties in learning and as
relevant to their proximity to girls in the classroom as it is to the higher-achieving
boys. Furthermore, the sociologist Cynthia Epstein argues that in fact there is no
consensus among psychologists as to the existence of psychological or cognitive
differences between the sexes.[1] Finally, as Michael Bronski notes, the benefits
of same-sex schools cannot be applied across the educational sphere for the
private schools where the tests take place admit either only high-achieving
pupils or self-select by expelling poorly-performing or misbehaving students.[2]
[1] Kaimer, W. The Trouble with Single-sex Schools. The Atlantic, April 1998.
[2] Bronski, M., Single-sex Schools. Znet, 25 October 2002.
COUNTERPOINT
There is little evidence to support this claim. Valerie Lee, a professor at the
University of Michigan, studied a sample of coeducational, all-boys and all-girls
independent schools, finding that the frequency of sexist incidents was similar in
the three types of schools. Wendy Kaimer argues that the restraints of femininity
are actually self-imposed at single-sex schools, whether manifested in feminine
dcor orpandering to womens fear of masculinizing themselves.[1]
[1] Kaimer, W. The Trouble with Single-sex Schools. The Atlantic, April 1998.
COUNTERPOINT
Children will gain exposure to the opposite sex when they reach adult life; whilst
they are young, they should be around those who they feel most comfortable
with. The inclinations of children in the formative years, between 7 and 15, are to
gravitate towards their own sex. What is natural should be encouraged, and can
most easily be done so in single-sex institutions. Furthermore, they naturally tend
towards behaviour appropriate to their gender. It is therefore easier to implement
an education strategy geared specifically towards one gender. Moreover, certain
subjects are best taught, both in terms of ease and effectiveness, in single-sex
classrooms, such as sex education or gender issues.
COUNTERPOINT
Single-sex schools for women are a natural extension of the feminist movement;
there are co-educational schools, men have had their own schools, why should
women not? It would still be discrimination if there were only male single-sex
schools; as long as both genders are catered for, this discrimination is redressed.
The issue in states like India is not there are too many single-sex schools, but
that there are not enough. This is more to do with cultural preferences for males,
and a population heavily overpopulated with males, than the lingering effects of
British colonial rule.
COUNTERPOINT
The positive health effects of single-sex schools pointed out in the same Dr.
Leonard study outweigh the emotional distress potentially felt by a minority of
divorced men. Regarding the majority, the research found those who stayed
together were just as likely to be happy in their relationship as men educated in
mixed schools. As for girls, the findings suggest they seem to learn what the
nature of the beast is without needing to learn alongside boys, whilst a central
finding of the study is that single-sex moderates the effect of genderstereotyping in terms of choice of field of study.[1]
[1] Garner, R. Why single-sex schools are bad for your health. The Independent,
1 December 2009.
One mother, whose daughter has attended a girls-only school for three years, shares
her experience on the GreatSchools parent community: "I feel that the single gender
environment has given her a level of confidence and informed interest in math and
science that she may not have had otherwise."
Federal law supports the option of single-sex education. In 2006, Education
Secretary Margaret Spellings eased federal regulations, allowing schools to offer
single-sex classrooms and schools, as long as such options are completely voluntary.
This move gives parents and school districts greater flexibility.