The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,042 times Debate No: 64372
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




The topic in question is: CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.
CHIPS is also known as Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools. It was recently passed by ofsted to be taught in Primary Schools. Here in the sources likely to help most: Website Year age groups to help. CHIPS review

Key features of the CHIPS programme include:
Promoting 'diversity' to four to five year-olds
Five to six year-olds role playing lesbian parents
Telling six to seven year-olds that "It doesn't matter if someone is gay, does it!"
Teachers role playing a gay person

1st round: Intro and acceptance
2nd and 3rd Debate
4th Rebuttal
Good Luck


Round 1 | Intro and Acceptance | by Eav | 2/11/2014

I am surprised Con already provided so many Pro-CHIP resources, considering the choice to be Con for this matter, but that is of course fine with me.

The concept of CHIP is a good sign in my eyes. It shows, that we finally accept families have become a complex matter and children should not grow up believing in only one kind of love. It will be a great chance to built a peaceful and harmonic society.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry about the late reply.

I will be talking on the main features first.
Key features of the CHIPS programme include:
Promoting 'diversity' to four to five year-olds
Five to six year-olds role playing lesbian parents
Telling six to seven year-olds that "It doesn't matter if someone is gay, does it!"
Teachers role playing a gay person

These ages are just too young. Firstly, the choice of becoming gay or not i huge. Teaching a child in Year 1 (for England years). When they are told to act a lesbian parents they will start to act like that is the way it should be for them. I'm not saying it's bad to be gay, but everyone is born straight (by that I mean that we are born to make have sex with the other gender the pass onto another generation.

Another problem is that they want parents to act as a gay person. How? Isn't it unfair to acts as a gay when different schools/ teachers will have different ideas on how gay act. Also, it is likely that there is more to it than what they act. It's sad, but these they gay are bullied and ridiculed. If a young primary school child was to act the way the teacher was and copied it in public they would get the same bullying.

These are young kids who shouldn't be put into this position. They don't teach about sex ed. till Year 6, or about drugs or feminism or WW1/ 2. This is because when you reach that secondary school you can trust that they can decide for themselves on these issues. This is why they don't teach about racism, cross-dressers etc. other life choices. Telling a young child one version of issue will see them copy there views. They are having it forced down their throats. They won't be told the negatives of being gay, only tricking them into a happy life. 9 of out ten people in a 2005 LGBT survey where bullied in school, with *30% missing day of school and 28% of those dropping school altogether. *14 LGBT killed them-self in 11 years. The last 5 all ranging from 14-15 year old. Just imagine the increase if too many young children are made to join the "party" before they find out what is really going on.

A way to end:
A 5 year old who is shown a super-man movies at a cinema will not know who is the good guy and bad guy if it was by themselves, but by the way the rest of the audience reacts to the actions of the villain and hero and the way they are

* Sources:


Round 2 | Rebuttal | by Eav | 5/11

I am a bit short on characters today, so I'll stick to a Rebuttal


[Rebuttal 1] Everyone is born straight
1a: CHIPS fosters gay kids
1b: Gay kids are bullying victims
1c: Being gay is dangerous
[Rebuttal 2] CHIPS is sexual education

R1: Everyone is born straight

Con makes the fundamental mistake to assume that people are "born straight". There is no prove for that but rather many sighs that indicate that this isn't the case.

According to the American Psychology Association (APA) most people experience "little or no sense of choice" regarding this matter {1} and though only 40% of all gay people share, what some call the Gay-Gene {2}, we have more and more reason to believe that being gay is a matter so complex that a same-sex-play-date can't really make the difference. Animals and old human tribes (that basically live like they did hundreds of years ago) all show signs of homosexuality and therefore that you can't prevent your child from being gay just by having it not knowing about gay people. A complex matter of genes, prenatal hormones and/or environmental influence are way more likely to have a hand in this. On a note here, that socially acquired and environmental are not the same; first one is one of many sub-categories found under environmental influences {2}.

Thus CHIPS is not able to make a child gay.

1a: CHIPS fosters gay kids

Nor does CHIPS want to make kids gay. It wants to show kids that the family structure they have is not superior or less worthy than those others live in. If kids are comfortable gay people, they are less likely to develop hostile behaviour against kids from a gay background.
It opens their mind from believing that families are only worthy if they have a mother and a father. Which means that CHIPS actually doesn't only help LSGB but also Single parent families, divorced families, etc. to deal with their situation in a way that it won't affect the kids social life in school
The program is not a quest to glorify gayness, it aims to show why there is no need in suppressing kids that want to play gay (which they sometimes do, as long as parents don't start to tell them that it's unnatural and that they can't play family together). CHIPS aims to work against harmful and one-sided conditioning that they often get from home. Parents themselves are often confused and disaffected around homosexuals and they are passing that on, often unknowingly.
Homophobia is a big problem and we can best prevent it, by making people able to understand that it is not frightening. Which doesn't mean to encourage Homosexuality. It means to make kids experience homosexuality in a non-sexual way so they won't fear homosexuals.

An example: The review from Round 1 complains about the story of a cockerel that can't crow and later saves the day by making a non-natural sound as manipulative way to show kids that "unnatural behaviour is positive and heroic" {3}. But this is wrong; the book only shows that even if you can't behave natural you are not less of person and as able as everyone to do good. The cockerel doesn't get voted the head of the clan, he only once saves his fellows and shows that what he can do can make up for what he can't. With the arguments of that review kids in wheelchairs would be worth excluding because they are even less able to do what "nature intended for them". And that's what most anti-CHIPS arguments do: they twist a harmless story that supports equality and open minded thinking into something it doesn't want to show. Even kids could get the difference

1b: Gay kids are bullying victims

Summary: gay is not a choice and CHIPS targets homophobia not homosexuality. That means it is a good way to end bullying. Cons argument here is that CHIPS makes you gay and being gay makes you a victim.
But as CHIPS doesn't make you gay but gay-friendly, CHIPS helps gay people and kids from gay families to not become victims. If the bullies don't fear and despise them, they don't attack them (see 1a) .

1c: Being gay is dangerous and negative

Unsourced, unexplaind, not scientific claim. Studies show a higher health risk for (male) people having unprotected gay sex but that is a different issue, because unprotected gay sex is a choice.

R2: CHIPS is sexual education

The CHIPS activities never involve sexual behaviour. It doesn't teach you how to have save gay-sex or touch each other. The activities rarely involve roleplays and more often stories like the one with the cockerel. The key word vocabular from an example lesson {4} is community, difference, diversity, not sex, desire or kissing. CHIPS is no sex-ed and therefore not a topic that violates the kids youth.

{3} see Con's review Round 1
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks, ill be replying to all those points.

R1: Everyone is born straight

Pro has mis-interpreted what I meant when I said that everyone is born straight. What I meant was the everyone is born with the features to make us have children. This can only happen with a man and women, whether it be by sex or egg freezing or whatever. Also, gay is seen as a secondary option or a alternative. This is why naturally you are attracted to the opposite sex. You have to choose to be gay, not to be straight. Pro ended by saying that CHIPS is not able to make a child gay. When did I say that it did. Also, I may say later on, the impact it could have at such a young age could put too much power onto the child becoming gay.

1a. CHIPS fosters gay kids
Pro mentions about how kids can be more comfortable around gay people and won't develop hostile behavior against kids from a gay background. However, how will they learn to be gay people. How will you be able to tell how a gay person acts like. And as far as i'm concerned, the only thing they are likely to do is kiss. Any other way could be seen as judging how gay people act. Every couple acts differently, so how can you define how every single one acts. Also, even before they have these CHIPS lessons, they are likely to not know whats going on because if a reception or Year 1 child was to see 2 males flirting I don't think that they will now that it is un-frequent. They won't be able to grasp that what they are doing is mostly frowned upon but rather see as just 2 people making love. In-fact, there is a chance that these couple may be seen differently at a young age and being pointed out by these young children. When Pro mention on how CHIPS want to show that there is no need in suppressing kids that want to play gay. This once again shows my point that they are too young to understand the subject. Most times its the parents that control their actions and even then the kids won't understand whats wrong with the parents. Your example ending also has a problem. You say that they are twisting a harmless story. The suicides would have something to say about that. The problem with most pro-CHIPS arguments are that they think that everything will work out fine if they are taught young. Problem? Too young.

1b: Gay kids are bullying victims

What do you mean gay is not a choice. You choose to be different from the average person. The only reason reason we are here is because of a man a woman. You choose to go against that and it make it a choice. Why would kids at the ages of 4-6 need to know about homophobia. What is it's use to them. They are being taught something way to early. It won't have a big effect on them. And the chance are when they go home and tell there parents what they learnt on that day the parents will replace it with their views since they are too young to fully understand.

1c: Being gay is dangerous and negative

Once again, pro has taken may words and twisted it in a pretzel and changed the complete complexion of it. I am saying that being gay can mean peoples opinions and views on you will change. Pro is coming close to relating it to choosing a rival football team to support, where only a little difference changes. Being gay can mean that people completely act opposite to the way they used to hang around you. Also, the repetition of gay not being a choice is starting to frustrate me. It is away form the normal. You choose to go against the average choice. This is why people may ask someone: " Are you gay?", rather than: "Are you straight?" It's more like those who choose to be gay to those who go against China's dictatorship. They choose to stand up while everyone ignores, and some people will love them for the choice, and some will hate them. It happens.

MAIN POINT: Just way too young.
This is being seen as something easy to understand and teach. The review says that along with learning to read and write, children in their Reception year at school should be taught about the sexual orientation of 1.1% of the
population of the UK who identify themselves as lesbian or gay. Why at reception. It just makes no sense. They do not fit. Why push children in reception in such a big issue when they are still learning how to read and write.
I don't think that gay-friendly behavior should be taught next to the bear necessity of writing, reading, English, Science and Maths needed in everyday life. Bullying as a whole can be as it is much simpler and frowned upon more and happens more. Take the right priority when it comes to a young kid.

Overall, I think that although CHIPS isn't that bad of a programme, I still think that the audience is wrong. It's like teaching a E grade student A* work. It is too complicated for some of their age. It should at least be kept away from them. We shouldn't plant opinions into the minds of those who won't understand it. It will end up going horribly wrong.
Oh, and being gay is a choice.


Round 3 | Rebuttal and Arguments | by Eav | 7/11

Rebuttal ongoing numbering

R3: Misinterpretation

I did not misunderstand a thing when I said that Con wrongfully claims that people are born straight. And I am still right, that he hasn’t given us any prove for this claims but his own assumptions (au contraire de moi).

“This is why naturally you are attracted to the opposite sex. You have to choose to be gay, not to be straight.” (Con, Round 3) = You are born straight and you choose not to be.

This can only mean that at some point you acquire the knowledge what being gay is and you choose to be it. If we were naturally straight nobody could become gay without know about it. Meaning that Con’s main problem with CHIPS can only be that it encourages kids to become gay, because it teaches about gay people. But as (see R1, Round 2) people are not born straight, this is ridiculous.

And on Con’s claim that he never said that CHIPS could make kids gay, I’ll point out this quote:
“Just imagine the increase if too many young children are made to join the "party" before they find out what is really going on.”

R2: Imitations

In 1a, Con again is jumping from conclusion to conclusion. Just as linking the suicides to the example story. It’s of course likely that gay people decide to kill themselves if they feel like they are rejected by society (see A2).
When CHIPS lessons assign to behave gay, this only means that they make a role play where there are two mothers. They are not pointed out to kiss or act like the stereotypical gay from a bad movie. This is not the intentions. Nobody will “play gay” while the teacher says “be gayer”.

R3: Too young and Bullying

Again, kids are not too young to understand that bullying and homophobia is wrong (because it’s mean and excludes nice people). They are too young to understand homosexuality. And I pointed this out: CHIPS is not about homosexuality, it’s about homophobia. That’s why it’s called: Challenging Homophobia not Checkout Homosexuality.

Kids learn homophobia at home. They learn that having a mom and a dad is right, and not having is weird. And that’s how kids start bullying other kids. They know better because children are naturally likely to be hostile against unknown. That’s an evolutionary mechanism like eating only specific foods.

Parents cannot just “replace” a view. They influence it strongly but a kid that once learned that homophobia is wrong is much more able to decide whether he/she will go with the parents’ opinion forever. If they learn about alternative views early, they’ll earlier challenge the parents views.

R4: Accusation / Behaviour Change

It’s quote-time: “They won't be told the negatives of being gay, only tricking them into a happy life.” (Con9

I am sorry for adding the “dangerous”, but Con certainly said negative. And all the negative Con brought up (bullying and bullying related suicides, drop-outs) are actually what CHIPS goes against. And on the matter of change behaviour: People change. It happens. Even to those not being gay. I don’t know if that’s bad personal experience but it’s not a gay-exclusive-thing to change.

And on the matter of choosing to be gay: Lack of scientific prove. Still.

Pro Arguments most briefly mentioned before in Rebuttals

A1: CHIPS is agains homophobia and bullying

CHIPS only point is to fight homophobia. They read stories about animals that are non-sexual, they make role plays that are non-sexual, they have vocabulary being non-sexual and pro-diversion and pro-community.
And by fighting homophobia we achieve that kids reduce their fear of different family structures (meaning that it is not only beneficial for kids from gay families), reduce bullying. Which is important with kids from LGBT background being three-times more likely to be bullyied {5}

There is no age-minimum for bullying and therefore nobody is too young to learn why not to bully. That's why CHIPS is age appropriate. APA lists as main common feature of bullies is that they "show little empathy toward students who are victimized" {6}. And the CHIPS assignments are all about learning empathy. Which is important to learn as early as possible when they still are willing to (Primary School Kids > High School Teens).

A2: CHIPS can reduce suicides

Several attempts on suicide reasons uncovered realtions to depression, physical abuse and social isolation {7} {8}. But not being gay itself. Therefore relating to A1, that CHIPS helps to reduce bullying (=physical abuse and social isolation) it can help to take pressure from (gay) teens that had CHIPS. When they hit puberty and discover their own homosexuality they benefit from others being less hostile and develop less fear of their desires. Ergo: Reducing their suicide risk.


Debate Round No. 3


Firstly, thank you you Eav for accepting and taking part in this debate. Too many times when I join a debate it ends up with someone who forfeits most of them so it good to have a proper one. Good luck.
CHIPS is a group said by Pro to be tackling Homophobia. Fine.
They want to teach people to be fair to people whether they be gay, transgender, lesbian or whatever they choose. Fine.
They want to teach all this to primary school kids at the ages of 4 in reception. Not O.K.

My main argument is that these kids are too young too properly learn this. These are kids still learning how to READ AND WRITE. Reading and writing is so much more vital. I didn't have homophobia taught to me in primary or secondary school (so far), but I still know about it. But if I hadn't be taught it and was taught in Year 9, it would understand and use it more powerfully since i'm much more older and inspire my friends. But if I was to learn how to read and write and spell in Year 9 then I would struggle in life.

Read this and let it stick into your head:
A young kid goes home to their parent and they are asked what they did today.
In the morning, we got taught about how to write capital letter.
After break we learned our 12 times tables.
Our first lesson after lunch we watched Thomas the Tank Engine.
The last lesson was about a horse who felt sad because he had stripes.

That last sentence could have been:
The last lesson was about a horse who was bullied because he was different to everyone else and excluded.
Much more effective when the are older as the last sentence explains.

This programme states they will teach the kids that parents of all type are the same. I'm am not being rude or offensive but they're not. I'm not saying that changes how they are treated but a family of 1 mum or 1 dad isn't the same as 2 parents. As this is stated on the website, this is wrong. The kids with and non 2 parent family, whether gay or not, need to be handled a little better. We can all imagine as much as we want that these reception kids go home and when they see their parent odd-looking a 2 men together but we must be realistic, would that really happen. As much as you can say it could, might, maybe but in reality it's super- unlikely. Young people whose mother and father split up are also three times as likely to become aggressive or badly behaved, according to the comprehensive survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics. Kids ate the ages of 4 or 5 will just see them as being given an unfair extra boost since it's "all the same". To be honest, it all links to my first point and main argument that they are too young. There isn't enough "simple" lessons to be taught to them to be understand homophobia.

In conclusion, CHIPS should NOT be taught in primary schools because the children who are learning how to read and write should not be pushed into such a big thing. Teaching people about tackling bullying because someone is different is fine but homophobic bullying has no place in the reception or Year 1 playground. They don't talk about it and thus don't bully about it. When you reach secondary school you are exposed to more homophobic bullying and that is a perfect time to teach it. Lets not ruin the curriculum with something being unnecessarily pushed into a kids day of learning.
Vote Con.


Round 4 | Rebuttal | by Eav | 8/11/14

I thank my opponent as well, for this debate. It is indeed a shame that too many debates end in full forfeits and a waste of time.


[Rebuttal 7]* Primary School kids are unable to understand homophobia
[Rebuttal 8] CHIPS as a major part of the timetable

[Final Words] Main flaws in my opponents’ argumentation

*still ongoing numbering, despite me messing it up in Round 3


[R7] Primary School kids are unable to understand homophobia

Con’s last stand is the claim that PS kids are just not able to understand and profit from anti-homophobia-lessons. I already pointed out that those who are able to bully should learn why not to bully, but let’s back this up.

A report from an anti-homophobia-bullying-counsellor pointed out that about 76% of the primary school children already had knowledge what “being gay” meant and about 75% of all students experienced homophobic language on a daily basis {9}.
An article about the mental abilities of children shows that kids are absolutely able to understand transductive reasoning: He has to mothers, he is different. He is different, that is okay. The article also pointed out the importance of transitional objects that help us deal with situations that are uncomfortable for us {10}. Stories like the one with the cockerel or the striped horse can be such transitional objects.

We can therefore conclude that Primary School children in most cases already know about homophobia and are also, if sensitively approached, able to understand why it’s wrong. Cons critique that the lessons would be more effective later becomes vague considering that this basically means to wait till the kids developed a full-blooded homophobia. With 81% of PS kids recognizing “gay” as a word of insult {11} this is likely to happen.

[R8] CHIPS as a major part of the timetable

Con treats (and overdramatizes) CHIPS as if it would get a fixed spot in a kids timetable, being treated equally such as learning to write or read. This is not the case. CHIPS lessons can (and are intended to) be handled as non-regular projects in a context such as picknicks or outside-activity {4}.
Anti-Bullying lessons are not equal to learning hard skills but it can be a playful alternative to other games and projects that are a necessary balance to sitting and writing, which again, are important for Primary School children to learn soft skills of how to get along with each other.



Final Words

I’ll close this debate by pointing out where Con in my eyes severely wakened his point during this debate:

Round 2: despite saying that he will be “replying to all those points” he never presented a rebuttal to Round 2 Rebuttal 2 for CHIPS is sexual education.

Round 2 – 4: Con repeatedly claimed that homosexuality is a personal choice without providing prove on this matter. The following arguments rely on that claim and are (to me) invalid considering the lack of proof for his base claim: that CHIPS can (1) promote homosexuality and enforce that lifestyle on children, which will make them (2) bullying victims and (3) suicide endangered.

Round 4: As the Argument “too young” has been brought up before I’ll leave it to the judges to decide, but as this (by Con’s rule had to be) rebuttal, never tackled any of my points directly, I am not sure if this is even a proper Rebuttal. Leaving basically all my Round 3 Arguments and Rebuttals unrefuted.

Round 1 – 4: Con’s sources lack all numbering and in-text-reference. Especially in round four I can’t consider any of the sources as relevant, because they have not been linked to the parts they are intended to support.

Round 1 – 4: Con has neither numbered nor listed his core arguments making it extremely hard to deal with his points and mostly unstructured argumentation. That it took till Round 3-4 to come to the core point of his argumentation is what I consider a failure caused by Con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
Note: Bad, bad typo in Argument 1a.
Of course it should mean " If kids are comfortable WITH gay people, they [...]"
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
I don't think so. At least we even do drug and sexual education seminars without taking drugs or having intercourse. So...
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Does that include an actual demonstration of the activities homo's engage in?
No votes have been placed for this debate.