The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Anonymous03
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Girls joining the Boy Scouts Of America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 121633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

squeakly54n6

Pro

Con can go first, Prove to me why girls shouldn't be allowed to join the organization.
Anonymous03

Con

As a very wise man once said, Such a rule is written in the name 'BOY scouts'. There are girl scouts that boys are not allowed to join for the same reason.
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Pro

So here my opponent is essentially making an appeal to tradition being the name.

Well if appealing to tradition would either make your logic absurd or logically inconsistent since this sort of appeal can be used to justify,

- Slavery

- The Holocaust

- Genocide

- Homophobia
- Racism

I would like to ask my opponent to not make appeals to tradition since doing so would be justifying these atrocious acts as well since the people who perpetrated these acts used the same argument.
Anonymous03

Con

Pro is judging an argument based off of the negative correlations its' concieved basis has with other historical events.
Pro fails to deliver any substantial matter and connects the matter which they are given with a frankly nonsensical and irrelevant nitpick. Pro further continues this absurd argument by saying that I justify slavery, The Holocaust, Genocide, Homophobia and racism should I say that boy scouts is for boys, And girl scouts is for girls. Some of which, Should I mention, Have not been perpetrated on the basis of an appeal to tradition. The Holocaust is based off of Hitler requiring a scapegoat and some way to unite a fractured Germany, And homophobia is something many would argue isn't an appeal to tradition but is instead simply a matter of people alienating same-sex marriage, Not quoting the Bible to back it up, Among others which are irrelevant to pro's argument.
Even regardless of the correctness of Pro's claims, Pro's action of connecting the basis of my argument to other terrible acts and assuming that I am promoting them by this vague connection is in itself terrible conduct.
I am unable to continue until Pro brings substantial matter to the table or at all addresses what I have said; I will await such content and cannot deliver further substantive matter myself.

I will be looking forwards to rebut in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Pro

" Pro fails to deliver any substantial matter and connects the matter which they are given with a frankly nonsensical and irrelevant nitpick"

- Elaborate on how this is just an irrelevant nitpick, By you using the name of the organization as an argument, You're making an appeal to tradition.

This is the entire logic of your argument so me pointing out the logical inconsistencies or absurdities in your argument isn't exactly irrelevant.

" The Holocaust is based off of Hitler requiring a scapegoat and some way to unite a fractured Germany "

Sure Hitler used the jews to exploit the Germans, However this is just one side to his ideology.

Hitler and the entire nazi"s were reactionaries which were trying to destroy what they thought to be ruining their " perfect " society this includes homosexuals, Mentally disabled and of course Jews.

Essentially since they were reactionairse they were using an appeal to tradition.

", And homophobia is something many would argue isn't an appeal to tradition but is instead simply a matter of people alienating same-sex marriage, "

Quite simply this is not true, While one argument against same-sex marriage is religion, Another HUGE one is the appeal to tradition since,

Republicans use the traditional values argument to justify homophobia, Which in this case the traditional value is traditional marriage.

Even if we bought their argument on homophobia and the nazi"s, What about slavery and racial discrimination, Both of which were used to justify by appeals to tradition among other appeals.

" Pro's action of connecting the basis of my argument to other terrible acts and assuming that I am promoting them by this vague connection is in itself terrible conduct. "

This is a baseless accusation and absurd statement to make.

How is connecting the basis of your argument and pointing out the logically inconsistent points vague and terrible conduct?

If your own ideology is inconsistent that"s on you, It"s not my fault that i"m pointing them out to you.

Not to mention the fact that I very clearly pointed them out.

Now because people in the comments are complaining that the Bop is apparently on me, I will address it.

However before I begin it is important to point out that in a modern civilized society it is customary to allow everyone to have service until proven they don"t deserve it.

This is the exact reason why we have anti discrimination laws to prevent racists from banning black people from their restaurant,

Or prevent students getting expelled without a probable cause.

Not to mention the fact that I already stated that the BoP is shared and I was planning on incorporating my reasons into my argument before my opponent went for the nuclear option.

So with all of that aside I will now give you a few reasons as to why girls should be allowed to join boy scouts.

1. Girls get an opportunity to become an eagle scout which is rather useful for job applications.

2. The troops aren't coed, So this means the girls and boys get to choose whether or not they want to do events with one another

The reason why I bring this up is because one of the strongest arguments I've heard is that it's pushing girls into boy scouts,

When in reality if anything it gives troops even more freedom of choice since now boys and girls can interact in a camp/meeting setting which in turn brings unity between the sexes.

3. Girls get to learn useful skills in Boy scouts that they wouldn't otherwise learn in girl scouts.

This includes,

- Survival skills IE pocket knife safety and how to start a fire

- Leadership through planning meetings and organizing camp-outs and hikes.

If your counter argument is that " why should the BSA have to change, Why can't the girl scouts change? "

This is not a great argument for several reasons,

- This is not exactly convenient as changing an entire organization would be rather hard, However the BSA allowing girls is a much simpler process.

- Not to mention the fact that if the Girl scouts changed to suit the other girls, This would also disclude girls who actually like the GSA and don't want to go camping or learn survival skills.

These are arguably the bulk of why I think it would be a good idea for girls to join the BSA, Or now SOA.

Now that Ive provided to you detailed reasons as to why they should be allowed to join, You must counter my points and provide good enough reasons to not allow them to join.

To conclude, My opponent actually hasn't given me good enough reasons to believe girls should be discluded from the BSA and has instead relied on inconsistent/absurd appeals to tradition.
Anonymous03

Con

"Elaborate on how this is just an irrelevant nitpick, By you using the name of the organization as an argument, You're making an appeal to tradition. "
Okay, Let us assume that I am making an appeal to tradition. Does that necessarily mean that I support other ideologies based off of an appeal to tradition? Some X is Y, And all Y is Z, Therefore all X must be Z, According to that absurd logic. I reiterate that Pro is connecting the basis of my argument to coincidentally similarly terrible events throughout history in an absurd nitpick which fails to make sense.
'Hitler and the entire nazi"s were reactionaries which were trying to destroy what they thought to be ruining their " perfect " society this includes homosexuals, Mentally disabled and of course Jews. Essentially since they were reactionairse they were using an appeal to tradition. '
An appeal to tradition, In layman's terms, Is essentailly proclaiming that 'Since something has been this way for a while, Why not continue to do so? '. Tell me why Hitler's Aryan-supremacy beliefs as a centerpiece of Nazi ideology is an appeal to tradition? It's his own radical point of view, Not an appeal to tradition. If you knew about Hitler's rough upbringing and its' relevance to his life choices, You wouldn't be saying what you said. Your assumption of his being right-wing and therefore an appeal to tradition is quite incorrect; I'm assuming you're trying to draw a line between conservatism and being right-wing? What if I told you that they were two different things altogether? Stereotyping yet again.
'While one argument against same-sex marriage is religion, Another HUGE one is the appeal to tradition since, Republicans use the traditional values argument to justify homophobia, Which in this case the traditional value is traditional marriage. '
Do they? Do they say that 'only cis genders can marry as it's been like this for a long time'? Once again you generalise everyone of a certain political affiliation to something which not everyone is. Not only that, But you misidentify the arguments that homophobic Republicans do use. Most homophobes are people who feel uncomfortable around people who are gay [theatlantic. Com]; instead of relying on stated traditions and rules, Homophobes tend to make up dangers that gay people may pose, And create a predisposition to appraise future events in line with whatever the person dreaded to begin with according to research at Yale and Cornell. You assign homophobia to a political party which in itself is terrible conduct; you further go on to misdefine the origin of most homophobes' beliefs.
I did not dismiss slavery and racial discrimination. I did not make some claim that these do not make an appeal to tradition.

Now let's go onto your long-winded claims about a 'modern civilised society'.
You point out that in a modern civilized society it is customary to allow everyone to have service until proven they don"t deserve it'. In your long-overdue substantive matter you then rely on this claim to say that 'girls should therefore be allowed to join boys' scouts since there is no proof that they don't deserve it' or something along those lines?
I ask why can't they go into a GSA that is changed to be equal to the BSA? You preemptively rebut this and seem to clutch onto the fact that some girls in the GSA like it as it is, But then why do you also address an issue of girls also wanting to go to the BSA? As a commenter has addressed, This appears to be a double standard and little else. What if a boy wants the relative simplicity of the GSA?

Pro attempts to make me unable to answer by claiming anything I say is an appeal to tradition. I cannot in any way say that girls should not go to the BSA because evenually this will lead to an appeal to tradition. Regardless of me pointing out a rule written in the name or the simple fact that the girls have their own GSA which boys cannot lead to, Pro will attempt to make this an 'appeal to tradition'. I have provided Pro with a reason, Which Pro dismisses and does not address. I have addressed Pro's reason and reiterate my own- boys have boys' scouts and girls have girls' scouts. Boys are not allowed to join the girls' scouts. Am I to use your 'modern civilised society' point to counterargue that boys should be allowed to join the GSA too? In a modern civilised society, Why not just scrap boys' and girls' scouts altogether to make everyone happy? Anyone can cross over when they want to- what's the point?

Which is my point exactly. Having girls join what we call the Boys scouts of America would completely ruin the point of calling it the BSA in the first place, Which is why boys do not join the boys scouts of America. Why can't you make a subdivision of the GSA offering the teaching of skills the mainstream GSA doesn't offer? What stops anyone from doing this?

My opponent has half-heartedly proposed that the Scouts' respective gendered groups join in three words: 'Or now SOA'. They provide their model as part of a sentence. Pro dismisses my own arguments by connecting them to an irrelevant tangent and in a moment of bad conduct, Refuses to acknowledge their lack of substantive matter for two thirds of the debate, Only bringing up substantive matter in a round that usually consists of only rebuttal. I have provided my own points and have rebutted Pro's arguments where I can.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Reaper678

Aw man you offended me wow so clever #crying
Posted by Reaper678 3 years ago
Reaper678
As a severe masculinist, I definitely support Con in this argument. Girls should not be allowed into the Boy Scouts of America because there is literally another organisation called the 'Girl Scouts of USA' that only accepts girls. If you were to mix the genders, Then what would you call the group: The Mixed-Gender Scouts of America? The genders should be kept separate!
Posted by Reaper678 3 years ago
Reaper678
You can tell pro is a complete and idiotic feminist. BAN!
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@oalks

Once again you are ignoring and misrepresenting my entire point, You still actually haven't given a proper explanation to prove that I must prove that people deserve basic human rights.

You've instead relied on human psychology which has little to do with my argument.

Because of you ignoring my points ( like you did in the socialism debate )

I will brush this criticism aside.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
Whether you're too daft to understand my application of Psychology or intentionally misrepresenting me is unclear. I hope it's the former, But I'm going to assume this is another strawman. If youre honestly thinking your original claim wasn't one of psychology you're mistaken.

We react to anything foreign with tentativeness; i. E. , We must discover what something's significance is before we say it's "ok. "

Since you don't appear to understand either of the points I was making I will ignore the provided examples since you can't understand them. Here is a blatant expression of my former logic: You wish society to change in a fundamental manner, As the north wished of the south. You must justify this change, Either from a moral or rational perspective.

I have not made any specific claims as to why they should or shouldn't be allowed into the Boy Scouts. I have only taken issue with 1. Your comment; and 2. Your fundamental misunderstanding of proper BoP.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@oalks

I don't care about the psychology of human beings considering that this appeal would also justify murder or any other atrocious act since I could just state,

" well humans enjoy drama and murder so that justifies it "

Whether or not it's natural is irrelevant, Plenty of concepts in our society are unnatural such as laws, Roads, Schools, And air conditioners

Whether or not blacks fought in the war is irrelevant, Why should ANYONE have to fight for someone/their basic human rights?

I mean how would you like it if I kidnapped you and your family, Turned you all into slaves, And than made you prove to me why I should let you free.

I mean what you are literally stating justifies slavery, Homophobia, Racism, And any other type of discrimination.

Either way these points are irrelevant since I already stated that the bop is shared, I just stated it's mostly on Con to prove why they shouldn't be allowed to join the BSA.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
Your previous comment was a statement or a claim of truth, " in general we operate under the guidelines of anyone should have the right to do something until proven not to. " From the perspective of Psychology alone, This is untrue. Humans always approach foreign prospects with tentativeness until we become aware of the true nature.

Blacks didn't fight in that war, At least not in large numbers. It was largely white men who felt they were justified in their believing slavery is wrong. They proved and justified this to society through prospective morality among other political things. Slavery and anti-sufferage were justifiable for society until proven otherwise.

You must justify, If you wish to make this claim, That girls should be allowed into the Boy Scouts.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@oalks

This point is irrelevant since I already stated that i'll be providing various reasons as to why they should be allowed to join.

Your analogy on black voting actually proves my point, Why should blacks have to prove they should be allowed to vote?

Of course in real life they had to, But morally wise why should blacks have to fight a war just to obtain their human rights?

Same concept with restaurants, I believe restaurants shouldn't be allowed to refuse service for no reason, Other wise that would be discrimination which is against the law.

Businesses should only be allowed to refuse service if it's proven the person doesn't deserve the service.
Posted by oalks 3 years ago
oalks
Actually, We don't operate under that guideline (assuming you're living in the USA). Black people voting is an example of an amendment formed on a moral basis (i. E. , Is it moral to prevent blacks from voting? ). And technically speaking we did have to prove why they should be allowed to vote, Are you forgetting about the civil war?

You are making a positive assertion when you say girls should be allowed into the boy scouts. This is seemingly a double standard, If I applied this line of reasoning to the existence of the Christian God you wouldn't be fond of it.

As for your example of a restaurant, It is a private owners' right to refuse entry to anyone coming into the restaurant. They do not need to prove anything, Except for the fact they want them to leave. Prejudiced or not, It hardly matters, If the owner does not want you in his restaurant you must prove why he should let you in - either through course of law, Or by social means.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
Well in society in general we operate under the guidelines of anyone should have the right to do something until proven not to. So for instance black people don't have to prove why they should be allowed to vote, Someone else has to prove why they shouldn't.

Same with this instance, I don't have to prove that girls should be allowed in scouts, You have to give me reasons why they shouldn't. I have already stated the BOP is somewhat shared and I already planned on providing some reasons as to why they should be able to join, However my reasons aren't exactly complex nor deep.

Another example of this concept would be walking into a restaurant, I don't have to prove why I should be allowed in the restaurant, You have to prove to me why I shouldn't be allowed in the restaurant. The only reasons I have to state for why I should be allowed in the restaurant is that I am a human being who should have rights to walk into any restaurant I want as long as I don't break any rules.

Let's apply this to scouts, Girls shouldn't have to prove they should be allowed into the organization especially when national and a lot of local leaders want them to join and a good chunk of girls are left unsatisfied with girl scouts and want to do what boyscouts are doing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
squeakly54n6Anonymous03Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument boiled down to Pro saying girls should join BSA whereas Con said they can create a subdivision. So basically instead of saying they shouldn't at the end he says "Why can't you make a subdivision of the GSA offering the teaching of skills the mainstream GSA doesn't offer? What stops anyone from doing this?" He also made the argument earlier on that just because the name has something that means it can restrict people. Pro's rebuttals since his was a defensive stance were better than Con's arguments "Well if appealing to tradition would either make your logic absurd or logically inconsistent since this sort of appeal can be used to justify,". Pro basically knows that argument was an appeal to tradition and clearly laid it out in Round 2.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
squeakly54n6Anonymous03Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made good points in round 3, but con soundly rejects them. Pro (in my view) fails to completely rebut cons argument. Arguments to con. No sources used, no spelling mistakes as far as I can see and conduct was good all round. Ties

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.