Mosi : This House believes single-sex schools
are good for education
Single-sex schools are schools that only admit
those of one specific gender, believing that the
educational environment fostered by a single
gender is more conducive to learning than a co-
educational school. Studies conducted have
shown that boys gain more academically from
studying in co-education schools, but that girls
find segregated schools more conducive to
achievement. However academic results are not
the only criterion on which the success of the
education system should be judged. In the
United States, a long-standing controversy over
the Virginia Military Institute resulted in a
landmark Supreme Court ruling, in June 1996,
that the institute must admit women.
Nevertheless the Court left room for private
(i.e. not state-run) single-sex institutions and
other such schools, where needed, to redress
discrimination. Proponents of single-sex
schools maintain that, by removing the
distractions of the other sex, students learn
more effectively and feel better about their
education. Opponents maintain that co-
educational schools in contrast are important in
that they prepare students better for the real
world, and do not attempt to segregate students
from the realities of adult life. This debate can
apply both to secondary school and college
level, but single-sex institutions are found more
frequently at the former.
Affirmative
Women are better off in single-sex
institutions
Point
Women in particular benefit from a single-sex
education; research shows that they participate
more in class, develop much higher self-esteem,
score higher in aptitude tests, are more likely to
choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science in
college, and are more successful in their
careers. In the USA Who’s Who, graduates of
women’s colleges outnumber all other women;
there are only approximately 50 women’s
colleges left in the States today.[1] Elizabeth
Tidball, who conducted the Who’s Who
research, also later concluded that women’s
colleges produced ‘more than their fair share
who went on to medical school or received
doctorates in the natural or life sciences’,
typically male fields.
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 women’s colleges.[3]
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]
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 co-educational 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.
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..that’s 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 under-
develop. 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.
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]
Teachers favour their own gender in co-
educational schools
Point
Teachers frequently favour their own gender
when teaching co-educational classes; for
example, male teachers can undermine the
progress and confidence of girl students by
refusing to choose them to answer questions
etc. A recent study by the American
Association of University Women found that
‘gender bias is a major problem at all levels of
schooling’, asserting ‘girls are plagued by
sexual harassment and neglected by sexist
teachers, who pay more attention to boys’.[1]
As a result, girls tend to fall behind their male
counterparts.
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
décor or…pandering to women’s fear of
masculinizing themselves’.[1]
Negative
Children need to be exposed to the opposite
sex in preparation for later life
Point
The formative years of children are the best
time to expose them to the company of the
other gender, in order that they may learn each
other’s’ behaviour and be better prepared for
adult life. The number of subjects benefiting
from single-sex discussion is so small that this
could easily be organised within a co-
educational system. Furthermore, even if girls
naturally perform better in an environment
without boys, they need to learn how to
perform just as well with boys. Dr. Alan
Smithers, a respected British schools expert,
declared in a 2006 report that ‘distraction by
boys was a myth’ and that ‘half a century of
research has not shown any dramatic or
consistent advantages for single-sex education
for boys or girls’.[1]
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.
Single-sex schools are manifestations of
patriarchal societies
Point
Single-sex schools are a throwback to the
patriarchal society of the past; in many
historical cultures, only men were allowed an
education of any sort. To perpetuate this is to
remind women of their past subservience and to
continue to hold them from full social
inclusion. In India, where the colonial yoke of
British rule remains, the national average for
the difference in male-female literacy is 16.7%,
with some districts as high as 28%.[1] Single-
sex schools discourage female education and
make it increasingly difficult for parents to find
room for girls in the limited co-educational
schools. A push for single-sex education
therefore is ‘predicated on outdated, moronic,
and destructive gender stereotypes’
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.
Single-sex institutions are bad for the
emotional health of males
Point
Men always say that they do not understand
women, perhaps because they were sent to
single sex schools. Research has proved that
boys who went to single sex schools as opposed
to mixed schools are more likely to get
divorced and suffer from depression in their 40.
This is proof that we should school our children
in mixed schools in order to give them the best
bill of emotional health. Dr. Diana Leonard,
who presented the findings, concluded that
‘Boys learn better when they are with girls and
they actually learn to get on better’.[1]
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 gender-stereotyping in
terms of choice of field of study’.[1]
mosi : This House Believes that
assisted suicide should be legalized
Assisted suicide is “Suicide accomplished with
the aid of another person, especially a
physician.”[1] It is sometimes used
interchangeably with euthanasia “The act or
practice of ending the life of an individual
suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable
condition, as by lethal injection or the
suspension of extraordinary medical
treatment.”[2] The important part is that it is
assisted death rather than simply being allowed
to die. Assisted suicide is an issue which causes
world-wide conflict with various countries
differing strongly on their legal stances towards
assisted suicide. Currently there are only four
places which openly and legally authorise
assisted suicide; Oregon since 1997,
Switzerland since 1941, Belgium since 2002
and the Netherlands since 2002. Equally, there
are countries such as Russia, Hungary,
Republic of Ireland and England and Wales that
look upon assisted suicide as a criminal offence
with harsh penalties. Between these two
extremes there are also countries such as
Germany, Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg
where there is no specific law against assisted
suicide but equally there is no legislation
proclaiming it to be legal.[3]. Doctors
themselves are divided upon whether it should
be legalised. In September 1996 issue of the
BMA News Review, the results of a survey of
over 750 GPs and hospital doctors showed that
46% of doctors supported a change in the law
to allow them to carry out the request of a
terminally ill patient for voluntary euthanasia,
44% were against euthanasia and supported the
present law and 37% said they would be willing
to actively help end the life of a terminally ill
patient who had asked for euthanasia and so
assisting suicide, if the law allowed it.[4] This
debate will examine both the propositional and
oppositional arguments concerning whether
assisted suicide should be legalised. This debate
has received a lot of press recently due to the
death of Jack Kevorkian, the man nicknamed
'Dr Death' since he claimed to have assisted
more than 100 suicides. Throughout his life he
waged a defiant campaign to help people end
their lives, both sides of the debate would agree
that he provoked a national discussion, and
doctor-assisted suicide is now legal in three
American states.[5]
affirmative
Every human being has a right to life
Point
Perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all
our rights. However, with every right comes a
choice. The right to speech does not remove the
option to remain silent; the right to vote brings
with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the
right to choose to die is implicit in the right to
life. The degree to which physical pain and
psychological distress can be tolerated is
different in all humans. Quality of life
judgements are private and personal, thus only
the sufferer can make relevant decisions.[1]
This was particularly evident in the case of
Daniel James.[2] After suffering a spinal
dislocation as the result of a rugby accident he
decided that he would live a second-rate
existence if he continued with life and that it
was not something he wanted to prolong.
People are given a large degree of autonomy
within their lives and since deciding to end your
life does not physically harm anyone else, it
should be within your rights to decide when
you wish to die. While the act of suicide does
remove option to choose life, most cases in
which physician assisted suicide is reasonable,
death is the inevitable and often imminent
outcome for the patient regardless if by suicide
or pathological process. The choice for the
patient, therefore, is not to die, but to cease
sufferin
Counterpoint
There is no comparison between the right to life
and other rights. When you choose to remain
silent, you may change your mind at a later
date; when you choose to die, you have no such
second chance. Arguments from pro-life groups
suggest that nearly ninety-five percent of those
who kill themselves have been shown to have a
diagnosable psychiatric illness in the months
preceding suicide. The majority suffer from
depression that can be treated.[1] If they had
been treated for depression as well as pain they
may not have wanted to commit suicide.
Participating in someone’s death is also to
participate in depriving them of all choices they
might make in the future, and is therefore
immoral.
Those who are in the late stages of a terminal
disease have a horrific future agead of them
Point
The gradual decline of their body, the failure of
their organs and the need for artificial support.
In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy
their minds, the essence of themselves; even if
this is not the case, the huge amounts of
medication required to ‘control’ their pain will
often leave them in a delirious and incapable
state. At least five percent of terminal pain
cannot be controlled, even with the best care.
Faced with this, it is surely more humane that
those people be allowed to choose the manner
of their own end, and have the assistance of a
doctor to die with dignity. One particular
account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly
of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several
years with the knowledge that her muscles
would, one by one, waste away until the day
came when, fully conscious, she would choke
to death. She begged the courts to reassure her
that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in
choosing the moment of death. They refused.
Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with
the help of an anonymous physician committed
suicide in February 1994.[1]
Counterpoint
Modern palliative care is immensely flexible
and effective, and helps to preserve quality of
life as far as is possible. There is no need for
terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at
the very end of the course of their illness. It is
always wrong to give up on life. The future
which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of
course terrifying, but society’s role is to help
them live their lives as well as they can. This
can take place through counselling, helping
patients to come to terms with their condition.
Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out
in secrecy and often as a cry for help
Point
The impact on the family who remain can be
catastrophic. Often because they were unaware
of how their loved one was feeling. Suicide
cases such as Megan Meier, an American
teenager who committed suicide by hanging
herself in 2006,[1] as the parents have to launch
police investigations into why their child might
have felt so desperate. By legalising assisted
suicide, the process can be brought out into the
open. In some cases, families might have been
unaware of the true feelings of their loved one;
being forced to confront the issue of their
illness may do great good, perhaps even
allowing them to persuade the patient not to end
their life. In other cases, it makes them part of
the process: they can understand the reasons
behind their decision without feelings of guilt
and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient
can speak openly to them about their feelings
before their death.
Counterpoint
Demanding that family take part in such a
decision can be an unbearable burden: many
may resent a loved one’s decision to die, and
would be either emotionally scared or estranged
by the prospect of being in any way involved
with their death. Assisted suicide also
introduces a new danger, that the terminally ill
may be pressured into ending their lives by
others who are not prepared to support them
through their illness. Even the most well
regulated system would have no real way to
ensure that this did not happen.
negative :
It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused
Point
The guiding principle of medical ethics is to do
no harm: a physician must not be involved in
deliberately harming their patient. Without this
principle, the medical profession would lose a
great deal of trust; and admitting that killing is
an acceptable part of a doctor’s role would
likely increase the danger of involuntary
euthanasia, not reduce it. Legalising assisted
suicide also places an unreasonable burden on
doctors. The daily decisions made in order to
preserve life can be difficult enough; to require
them to also carry the immense moral
responsibility of deciding who can and cannot
die, and the further responsibility of actually
killing patients, is unacceptable. This is why the
vast majority of medical professionals oppose
the legalisation of assisted suicide: ending the
life of a patient goes against all they stand for.
The Hippocratic Oath that doctors use as a
guide states 'I will neither give a deadly drug to
anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a
suggestion to this effect.'[1
Counterpoint
At the moment, doctors are often put into an
impossible position. A good doctor will form
close bonds with their patients, and will want to
give them the best quality of life they can;
however, when a patient has lost or is losing
their ability to live with dignity and expresses a
strong desire to die, they are legally unable to
help. To say that modern medicine can totally
eradicate pain is a tragic over-simplification of
suffering. While physical pain may be
alleviated, the emotional pain of a slow and
lingering death, of the loss of the ability to live
a meaningful life, can be horrific. A doctor’s
duty is to address his or her patient’s suffering,
be it physical or emotional. As a result, doctors
will in fact already help their patients to die –
although it is not legal, assisted suicide does
take place. Opinion polls suggest that fifteen
percent of physicians already practise it on
justifiable occasions. Numerous opinion polls
indicate that half the the medical profession
would like to see it made law.[1] It would be
far better to recognise this, and bring the
process into the open, where it can be regulated.
True abuses of the doctor-patient relationship,
and incidents of involuntary euthanasia, would
then be far easier to limit. The current medical
system allows doctors the right to with-hold
treatment for patients. Though, this can be
considered to be a more damaging practise than
allowing assisted suicide.
If someone is threatening to kill themselves it
is your moral duty to try to stop them
Point
Those who commit suicide are not evil, and
those who attempt to take their own lives are
not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty
to try and prevent people from committing
suicide. You would not, for example, simply
ignore a man standing on a ledge and
threatening to jump simply because it is his
choice; and you would definitely not assist in
his suicide by pushing him. In the same way,
you should try to help a person with a terminal
illness, not help them to die. With the exception
of the libertarian position that each person has a
right against others that they not interfere with
her suicidal intentions. Little justification is
necessary for actions that aim to prevent
another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading
with a suicidal individual, trying to convince
her of the value of continued life,
recommending counseling, etc. are morally
unproblematic, since they do not interfere with
the individual's conduct or plans except by
engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela
1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252).[1] The impulse
toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent,
and influenced by mental illnesses such as
depression. While these facts together do not
appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal
intentions, they are indicators that the suicide
may be undertaken with less than full
rationality. Yet given the added fact that death
is irreversible, when these factors are present,
they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans
on the grounds that suicide is not in the
individual's interests as they would rationally
conceive those interests. We might call this the
‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach
to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst
Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002).[2]
Counterpoint
Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate
but acceptable in some circumstances – those
who end their own lives are not seen as evil,
nor is it a crime to attempt suicide. It seems odd
that it is a crime to assist a non-crime. The
illegality of assisted suicide is therefore
particularly cruel for those who are disabled by
their disease, and are unable to die without
assistance. For example, in March 1993
Anthony Bland had lain in persistent vegetative
state for three years before a Court Order
allowed his degradation and indignity to come
to a merciful close.[1] It might cause
unnecessary pain for people if they make an
attempt at suicide themselves and subsequently
fail. Rather than the pain-free methods that
could be available through doctors and modern
medicine.
Only God can give and take away life
Point
Life is Sacred so no one has the right to take a
life, this includes ones own. As a result both
suicide and assisted suicide are wrong. There
are many passages within the bible that speak
of the idea that God has appointed a time for all
to die, 'Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed
unto men once to die, but after this the
judgement:” Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, “To every thing
there is a season, and a time to every purpose
under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time
to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up
that which is planted;” Ecclesiastes 7:17, “Be
not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish:
why shouldest thou die before thy time?”[1] In
addition to this, physicians are nowhere in
Scripture given authority to take someone's life.
Apart from the government in the case of
capital punishment, all other human beings are
given the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,”
Exodus 20:13 and “Thou shalt do no murder,”
Matthew 19:18.[2]
Counterpoint
'Were the disposal of human life so much
reserved as the peculiar province of the
almighty, that it were an encroachment on his
right for men to dispose of their own life, it
would be equally criminal to act for the
preservation of life as for its destruction'[1]. If
we accept the proposition that only God can
give and take away life then medicine should
not be used at all. If only God has the power to
give life then medicines and surgeries to
prolong people's life should also be considered
wrong. It seems hypocritical to suggest that
medicine can be used to prolong life but it
cannot be used to end someone's life
It would have a damaging effect on society
Point

Some people who do not agree with voluntary

euthanasia argue that if it was legalised, it
would damage the moral and social foundation
of society by removing the traditional principle
that man should not kill, and reduce the respect
for human life. It might also be the case that
once voluntary euthanasia has been legalised,
this might lead to cases of involuntary
euthanasia being carried out. With people
deciding that someone else's life such as the
elderly or the terminally ill is not worth living
and therefore performing euthanasia without
their consent.[1] A recent study discovered that
some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as
many as three out of four of the main sample –
were happy and did not want to die.[2]

Counterpoint

However, the idea that we should not kill is not

absolute, even for those with religious beliefs
— killing in war or self-defence is justified by
most. We already let people die because they
are allowed to refuse treatment which could
save their life, and this has not damaged
anyone's respect for the worth of human life.
Concerning the notion that legalised voluntary
euthanasia might lead to involuntary euthanasia
being carried out, there is no evidence to
suggest this. As Ronald Dworkin states, 'Of
course doctors know the moral difference
between helping people who beg to die and
killing those who want to live.'[1]