Comprehensive Sex Education
Full Resolution: Comprehensive Sex Education Should Be Taught in Public Schools
Abstinence-only sex education is a form of sex education that teaches not having sex outside of marriage. It often excludes other types of sexual and reproductive health education, such as birth control and safe sex. Comprehensive sex education, by contrast, covers the use of birth control and sexual abstinence .
I will begin my arguments in Round 2. I prefer to debate someone with experience.
If you are restricted from accepting this debate but have an interest, let me know!
The first round will be for my contender's acceptance. Good luck.
I will be arguing that sex education should not be taught in public schools.
My opponent didn't clarify whether we are talking about middle school or highschool, so, I will assume she meant that sex education should be taught in middle school, and highschool.
Abstinence-Only education (AO) teaches adolescents to abstain from sexual activity, and that this is the only certain method of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). AO programs teach that abstinence until marriage is a standard by which to live; that sexual expression outside of marriage will have harmful social, psychological, and physical consequences; it usually omits controversial topics such as abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation; and AO uses fear tactics (such as highlighting condom failure rate) to encourage the limitation of sexual expression.
I will be arguing that schools should teach about birth control alongside sex, as opposed to limiting the discussion to "don't have sex before marriage." Rosalie will be arguing that comprehensive sex education should not be taught in schools.
Do schools have the right to teach about sex? Should they?
Most schools concentrate sexuality education in grades 7 through 9 and confine the unit to the health or science curriculum . This is because sexuality directly links to both subjects. Comprehensive Sex Ed (CSE) does not teach about the morality of sexuality, but rather about factual things that pertain to sex. Schools are not discouraged from teaching fact-based information.
For example schools teach about different religions, even though public schools are not allowed to promote one religion over another. Similarly, schools can teach about both sex and abstinence without necessarily promoting one ideal over the other. Consider the fact that schools also teach about politics without necessarily promoting one ideology over another. In other words, it's possible to teach about sex without encouraging students TO have sex. The conversation/curriculum would strictly be educational and informative.
In the United States, 46% of all high school age students, and 62% of high school seniors, have had sexual intercourse . Therefore we can effectively assume that 1/2 of all HS aged kids are having sex. Teaching CSE provides information that directly relates to the lives, health and safety of sexually active teens, as well as prepares the other half so they will be better equipped to understand the consequences and options.
Since the schools would not be promoting sex but merely teaching about it, they have every right to promote factual information that pertains to health and science. Sex in and of itself is not a taboo subject but merely part of nature. It is the individual or cultural (religious) preferences that dictate particular attitudes toward sex, but schools are not responsible for accommodating the bias or personal beliefs of some. Rather schools exist to foster learning and provide a useful, well-rounded education. Learning about sex is very useful - more about that later.
What if parents think the topic is inappropriate?
It's common for schools to teach about reproductive health (specially menstruation) when students become adolescents, prior to reaching puberty. If parents prefer their children not learn this material, they have every right to deny the school permission for this lesson. The child can either be kept home, or more realistically be relieved from the class and not be exposed to things their parent or guardian does not feel comfortable with.
Notes explaining the content material are often sent home for the parents to understand before making the decision. However just because some parents prefer their kids remain ignorant and afraid, doesn't mean that's the option many parents would choose. Thus schools should teach CSE and allow the parents who disagree to make other arrangements. The fact is there is a lot of scientific and useful health information about sex, thus schools have a reason to include it in the curriculum overall. After all we should assume schools are secular and therefore non-moral, fact-based information is relevant in class.
What are the harms of Abstinence-Only sex education?
AO programs do not acknowledge teen sexual behavior. They believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Consequently, these programs do not teach young people how to protect themselves when they become sexually active. Contraception and condoms may be mentioned only when discussing failure rates. As a result, young people who engage in sex will not be knowledgeable enough to understand why they are important or how to use them effectively. This puts sexually active young people at great risk.
With AO, the consequences of STDs, guilt, and shame are used to frighten young people into abstinence. However statistics show that AO does not work at inhibiting sexual activity. Research shows that AO is ineffective at preventing both unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STIs, among other shortfalls . In addition, AO has been found to include misleading medical information and exclude potentially life-saving information about sexual risk reduction .
According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, "scientific evidence simply does not support an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach." A 2010 report by the Guttmacher Institute pointed out that pregnancy rates for teens reversed their decline in 2006, near the peak of the Abstinence Only campaign in the United States . In other words, AO promoted pregnancy because teens were ignorant about birth control. Furthermore teaching AO did not actually prevent teens from exploring sex.
Teens are having sex whether parents want to accept it or not. As a result of AO education, they are completely unprepared and do not understand the risks, options or preventative measures that could protect them.
Why should schools teach Comprehensive Sex education?
CSE includes age-appropriate, medically accurate information on a broad set of topics related to sexuality including human development, relationships, decision making, abstinence, contraception and disease prevention . It is a more holistic approach that recognizes abstinence as one possible approach to sex, but prepares students for a more realistic one. The majority of Americans do not stay virgins until marriage.
Even assuming one stays abstinent until marriage, they can still benefit immensely from learning about sex. First, CSE not only teaches about sex with others, but provides insight about one's own sexuality as well. For example CSE touches on masturbating and other things that have to do with the changing body. It might also touch on homosexuality and other sexual identities for informational value.
Many teens have a lot of questions about their newfound sexual preferences and desires. While AO programs keep kids in the dark (many parents are too uncomfortable or ill equipped to have these conversations), CSE looks to provide insight that could benefit an adolescent's understanding of themselves and their bodies.
CSE reduces risky behavior. In November 2007, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released an authoritative and comprehensive review of research findings on the effectiveness of CSE programs. They found that none of the comprehensive programs hastened the initiation of sex or increased the frequency of sex. It also found that CSE worked for both genders, for all major ethnic groups, for sexually inexperienced and experienced teens, in different settings, and in different communities . In short, CSE is helpful and effective across all youth populations.
Since many teens are having sex, it would make sense to assume that parents and society want them to be safe. Inhibiting STIs and unwanted pregnancy are important. Teens have a right to learn important information that directly affects them. They should be knowledgeable about their choices and the possible consequences, as well as how to protect themselves. This would leave them in a position to make more informed decisions.
AO programs increase the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STIs. Research indicates they are completely ineffective at preventing teen sex. Therefore they only keep people ignorant and ill-prepared to make smart and healthy choices. On the other hand, CSE educates and protects teens. It explains (often tough or awkward) information to teens about themselves, their bodies and their options in a way that is informative and valuable.
There is a ton of value in sex education that is relevant to health and science. One's mental health could also be affected. Uncomfortable parents can make other arrangements if they prefer to keep their children ignorant, afraid and exposed to potential danger. Otherwise, CSE provides a learning environment where adolescents can be exposed to information they might not even realize they needed to know, and that can teach them things they might want to ask their parents questions about later.
Again CSE is not about the morality of sex, but the science of it.
Back to Con.
 Santelli, John S.; Speizer, Ilene S.; Edelstein, Zoe R. (January 2013). "Abstinence promotion under PEPFAR: The shifting focus of HIV prevention for youth." Global Public Health, 8.
 Kirby D,Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2007.
Thank you Pro! I will use this round for my opening arguments, and use the next round for rebuttals.
There are parent’s who don’t want their children to be taught sex education in school, just as there are teachers who feel that it’s not their job to teach sex education. There are some families, who have strict morals. They may encourage their children, not to have sex, until they are married. Their parents may have talked to them about the risks, and bad outcomes of having sex already. When any type of sex education is taught, including abstinence, it gets kids to thinking, and talking about it with their friends. Some of their friends may have already has sex, and tell their friends, whom are virgins, that “it’s okay to have sex” because “Nothing bad happened” to them. Pupils may become persuaded, and tempted to go out and have sex, since their friends are doing it, this is called peer pressure.
I will be arguing:
1. It's not a teachers duty to teach sex education.
2. Comprehensive sex education is innefective
3. Sex education is a waste of the goverments money.
I will also touch some on immorality.
C.1 It’s Not a Teacher’s Duty to Teach Sex Education
A study in 2010, discovered that 1 in 3 schools are not teaching sex education properly, merely because teachers are too embarrassed to discuss it, or have little knowledge on the topic.
 “The report said sex had been "squeezed out" from the curriculum because "since the topics were particularly sensitive, some teachers felt uncomfortable in teaching such demanding themes…Students may still be subject to embarrassment or excitable by subject matter. If not taught properly, sex education in school can become a matter of ridicule and students may not take any interest in it.”
How are we to know, that the teachers are teaching this effectively? Who says that the program of sex education they’re teaching is proper?
Are we asking children if they are even comfortable with being taught on such a topic at their age?
When you’re young, you may make sex jokes with friends and such, but not feel comfortable to talk to an adult about sex. When a teacher whom is un-experienced in the topic, and nervous, it causes a chain reaction, making children nervous themselves, and confused. Especially if the teacher doesn’t exactly know what he, or she is teaching.
 “Mostly teachers who are given the task of teaching sex education to students are not experts and have vague ideas about sexual health themselves. This is even more harmful as incorrect information is extremely lethal as it can actually leave a wrong impression on the students. Children have an impressionable mind and incorrect information imparted at an early age can actually transform them into ignorant adults.”
I think we can all agree, that parents are the most qualified to teach their own children about sex, considering they have had a child, unless the child was adopted. They also can teach children what they (as in the parents) want their children to know. Maybe they would rather teach their children about abstinence, rather than comprehensive.
C.2 Comprehensive Sex Education is Ineffective.
Why do we study history? Well, for 1 main reason I can think of, is to not repeat mistakes from the past.
We can do the same thing with comprehensive sex education.
Comprehensive sex originated in Sweden in 1950, and the ideas and teachings spread throughout the world. In the late 70’s many studies were done to show that comprehensive teachings are in fact, ineffective.
As study in 2002, showed that sex education had very little influence on teenager’s sexual lifestyle, and choices.
 One of the biggest studies ever conducted on the impact of sex education delivered by teachers suggested that specially designed programme aimed at Scottish secondary school pupils had no more impact on adolescents' sexual activity or risk taking than conventional lessons although it increased their knowledge of sexual health and marginally improved relationships.
And a review of research in the US and Canada indicated that pregnancy prevention programmes for 11-18, including sex education classes, family planning clinics and other outside school initiatives had not delayed sexual intercourse, improved birth control or reduced teenage pregnancies.
C.3 Sex Education is a waste of Money.
 From “1971 to 1986 the government spent $2 billion of taxpayer’s money on sex education. During this same period, the number of girls who became pregnant while using contraceptives rose 266%. There was also a 107% increase in those who had abortions and a 93% increase to those who contracted STDs.”
The purpose of comprehensive sex edu, is to teach kids, and teens how to have safe sex. Either A) the reason why the rates are high, is because teachers are not teaching kids properly, or B) kids honestly don’t care, at all. Kids and Teens will do what they please.
 “Usually a successful program is not brought by teachers, it’s brought by parents,” says Liz Sanchez, curriculum coordinator for the ) . “Get even one parent you know and bring them in. Educational systems respond to parents.” This goes back to my beginning arguments. Teachers don’t feel comfortable teaching sex to other people’s children, they may have the right to, but it’s simply not their job.
C.4 Immorality of Sex Education
If we look of the definition of “Comprehensive Sex Education” it will read:  “teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with STDs, including HIV. It also teaches interpersonal and communication skills and helps young people explore their own values, goals, and options.”
But in today’s current teachings, we are making children perform uncomfortable exercises, and parent’s aren’t comfortable, nor are they happy about it.
 “Most comprehensive sex-ed curricula contain sexually explicit and offensive materials. For example, curricula have students practice unrolling condoms on bananas, cucumbers, or model phalluses. Curricula also contain discussions of anal sex and homosexual role-playing and encourage teens to practice mutual masturbation and watch erotic movies. Much material in “abstinence plus” curricula would be alarming to parents.” For example, the curriculum Be Proud! Be Responsible! instructs teachers to:
“Invite [students] to brainstorm ways to increase spontaneity and the likelihood that they’ll use condoms…. Examples: …Store condoms under mattress; Eroticize condom use with partner…Use condoms as a method of foreplay.… Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms….Act sexy/sensual when putting condoms on…. Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it. Wrap them as a present and give to your partner before a romantic dinner. Tease each other manually while putting on the condom”
I think we all can agree that these sorts of things, stated above, should not be a focus of a child in middle school, or high-school. By having kids perform these exercise, and giving them ideas, we are almost convincing them to go out and have sex, and there is always risks involve while having sex, even when using a condom, because they are not always effective.
I wish my opponent good luck on the next round! :)
Teachers cannot pick and choose the curriculum that is taught in public schools. If a teacher would like to promote or avoid particular subjects, they would have to teach in a religious or private school.
"School districts limit teachers’ religious expression in order to avoid violating the establishment clause... When teachers speak to their classes, they represent the school and the school board. Teachers, as agents of the government, may not inculcate students... Otherwise, they run afoul of the establishment clause" .
Whether or not a teacher has or promotes religious ideals, their job as a public school official is to promote school policy regardless of their own beliefs. In the last round, I've explained how sex education is an extricable part of both health and science education, thus has a place in public schools.
My opponent mentions that by exposing kids to the topic of sex, it might get them talking about sex amongst their friends (which we should assume they have and/or will do anyway). But gossip among uninformed children is specifically why sex education is so important. Rather than have a group of ignorant young people trade misconstrued and false information, sex education can provide valuable insight that is both factual and accurate. The alternative is having kids pass along misinformation they overheard or attained from problematic sources.
Re: Teacher's Obligations
Con argues that because we cannot be sure teachers are teaching sex ed effectively, we should drop it. By that logic, why teach math, science, english or any other subject? We implement standards in education such as standardized testing and teacher performance reviews to promote competency amongst educators. This is how we measure effectiveness and promote the best teachers possible.
If teachers are observed to not teach sex ed effectively, their competency as an educator should be called into question. School is filled with a lot of sensitive and controversial subjects including political discourse, the subject of evolution, and tragic or heated occurrences in history (especially war and terrorism). Teachers should not shy away from these important discussions, and if they are not comfortable having them, they should not be hired or keep their jobs.
Research shows that there is a great benefit to tackling tough subjects in the classroom, particularly where people have different ideals. This promotes discussion, learning, tolerance and understanding. "Addressing tough topics is a critical component of building community in the classroom. Real community is based on the full acknowledgement of difference, as well as the establishment of common purposes. When children are comfortable sharing their unique histories, there is the potential to uncover shared experiences and to identify themes for investigation" .
It is important to have tough class discussions  that prepare students for differences and challenges they will face in the real world . Regardless of what approach teachers use, students should be equipped with the skills necessary to identify and understand multiple perspectives.
Con questions if students are ready and willing to learn about sex at a certain age, but students do not get to choose their curriculum for any subject. However if they are uncomfortable, they may ask to be excused or take it up with their parents who can pull them out of the lesson, as I have explained. Furthermore, kids might not even realize that there are things they don't know about but should know about, which is why exposure to these lessons is so important.
Re: Comprehensive Sex Education is Ineffective
The effectiveness and success of comprehensive sex education is overwhelming.
>> Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education .
>> Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive sex ed programs studied had positive effects:
* 40% delayed sexual initiation, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use.
* 30%reduced the frequency of sex, including a return to abstinence.
* 60% reduced unprotected sex .
>> Researchers at the University of Washington set out to compare the sexual health risk of adolescents who have received various types of sex education. This study used data collected in 2002–03 through the National Survey of Family Growth, a nationwide survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics. The researchers analyzed data from 1,719 heterosexual respondents to the NSFG who were 15–19.
The results? "Young people who received comprehensive sex education were 50% less likely to report a teen pregnancy compared to those who received no sex education... this study confirms that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are NOT effective in changing young people’s sexual behavior or preventing negative outcomes such as teen pregnancy. More importantly, however, it confirms that programs that teach young people about both abstinence and contraception/disease prevention are, in fact, effective" .
>> Comprehensive sex education is more effective at stopping the spread of HIV according to the American Psychological Association. Research shows that 1 in 5 adolescents will have sex before the age of 15, and "only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In contrast, scientifically sound studies of abstinence only programs show an unintended consequence of unprotected sex at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In this way, abstinence only programs increase the risk of these adolescents for pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses, including HIV/AIDS" .
Con hasn't provided much information about why her studies ought to be considered valuable; we don't know the size, scope and sample study information. The vast majority of research overwhelmingly supports my position. I could provide innumerable other sources that are peer reviewed and explain what seems obvious: when students learn how to protect themselves, they will be able to. When students DON'T know what to worry about or how to be safe, they likely won't be safe. But I don't have the character space, so that logical conclusion should be accepted.
My opponent will not be able to prove that parents will teach their children everything they should know about sex, or that by bringing the topic of sex up in school will somehow promote sex. History shows that young people have been having sex since they've reached puberty since the beginning of humanity.
Puberty typically occurs between ages 9-13 and it was common for our ancestors to have sex around age 12-14 for optimal reproduction . This is when adolescents today still start feeling sexual urges despite our cultural conditioning that suggests we should delay sex until we are mentally mature.
Re: Waste of Government Money
The U.S. has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs among developed countries . Almost 90% of Americans believe that it is important for young people to have information about contraception and prevention of STIs, and that sex education should focus on how to avoid unintended pregnancy and STIs . Ergo the citizen's voices should be heard since people are in danger, and they want others and our youth to be informed.
Studies show that health and academic achievement are linked. Sexual risk taking and its unintended consequences can negatively impact students at school. Health classes and sex education can reduce the prospect of one contracting an STI. My opponent defeats her own argument in talking about sex when she says kids will "do as they please." Research agrees and shows that students will have sex regardless of whether or not they are taught about sex in school, so it makes sense to assume that teaching about safety will promote sexual safety .
Re: Immorality of Sex Education
Con's only argument on why sex ed is "immoral" is because some parents are uncomfortable with it. Some parents are uncomfortable with their child eating gluten, but that doesn't mean gluten is immoral. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex; it is a natural, biological function that is inherent to life and reproduction. It is human instinct. If some people find it immoral, that is their biased prerogative. I am not advocating to force sex ed amongst a child against their parent's will.
I've repeatedly explained that children should speak up if they are uncomfortable. In the last round, I outlined that parents have every right to inhibit their child from the discussion (the same way they can not expose their child to the lessons on puberty and reproductive organs/health).
Con writes, "By having kids perform these exercise, and giving them ideas, we are almost convincing them to go out and have sex" which is unsupported. This is a bare assertion with no proof. In fact kids are exposed to sex in the media  including television  and especially online . Moreover, statistics show that teaching about sex sometimes leads to a decline in sexual activity. See my earlier point about studies showing that comprehensive sex ed leads to a delay in sexual activity.
Condoms are over 98% effective when used properly . This is a lot more than 0% effective which is what Con's proposition supports. If kids don't know the dangers of unprotected sex or how to properly protect themselves, they are more likely to engage in riskier behavior that promotes harm.
Thank you Pro.
I will be rebutting Pro’s case from R2, and if there are enough characters left, I shall defend my case.
Rebuttal #1 “Do schools have the right to teach about sex? Should they?”
My opponent states “Teaching CSE provides information that directly relates to the lives, health and safety of sexually active teens, as well as prepares the other half so they will be better equipped to understand the consequences and options.”
Teachers do in fact have the right to teach students about sex education. But, as I have argued, are teachers actually qualified to teach about sex? As I had stated in my round, a lot of teachers feel it’s not their place to teach other people kids about sex, nor are they very knowledgeable themselves on the topic.
 “Four in five teachers said they did not feel adequately trained and confident to broach the sensitive topic with pupils, while half admitted it is "difficult to discuss". There were also concerns that religious faith could be denying children access to a proper sex education, with six out of ten teachers claiming that discussing sex, relationships and lifestyle choices "can go against religious beliefs".
Who is to blame, if a kid goes out, and has sex, but ends up pregnant, or obtains some STD, yet they were taught sex ed in middle school, and the child thought they had taken the necessary precautions before having sex?
Who says if a teacher is under-qualified to teach such a personal subject? The teacher themselves will not truly know if they’re uncomfortable until they are actually in the moment of teaching, and answering questions from students.  “More than nine in ten parents said it was "very important" for their children to be properly informed on safe sex and contraception, but only a fifth of teachers felt capable of doing so.”
We should not force teachers to teach a subject that is not actually required to be taught in all schools. If we force a teacher to teach sex ed, what is he/se gives wrong advice to a student, because they’re unknowledgeable, or embarrassed, then whose fault is it?
Rebuttal #2 “What if parents think the topic is inappropriate?”
This goes back to my argument in rebuttal #1. We can’t and shouldn’t force teachers to teach a subject they are uncomfortable with. Especially when 18 of 21 states don’t require there sex teachings to be 100% accurate.
 “According to a March 2012 report released by the National Conference of State Legislators, only 21 states and the District of Columbia require schools to teach sex education. And, in a finding that should jolt parents and teachers out of their chairs, only 18 states require that the information be medically accurate.”
Sure, parents may keep their child from going to this particular class, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is the flaws, and mistakes that are being shown, and made by the teachers that are teaching the topic. Maybe it is for the best that children be kept home, instead of going to this particular class, where parents expect their children to be taught correctly, and not use un-reliable, misleading facts.  "Lessons on reproductive anatomy and basic functioning were often incomplete and pervasive factual limitations reflected gender stereotypes and heterocentric bias." The survey also found explicit moral overtones regarding sexuality, the value of abstinence, teen pregnancy and family life in many of the curricula.”
If we take a step back, and look at the bigger teacher, we will see that keeping some kids from going to the class, and letting others take the class is completely unfair, considering that many of these classes are flawed, and the children who actually take these classes will be effected in the most negative way, in the long run.
I will not rebut my opponents case on why comprehensive should be taught over abstinence, because from my arguments, and sources, I have proved that comprehensive is just as ineffective then abstinence.
Thusly, I am merely arguing sex edu. No
t be taught in schools, because both comprehensive, and abstinence are ineffective, and parent’s should instead teach their children on the topic.
On teachers obligation: Pro states “Con argues that because we cannot be sure teachers are teaching sex ed effectively, we should drop it. By that logic, why teach math, science, English or any other subject?”
Teachers who teach in high school, generally teach one subject, that they are trained in.  “However, if you teach high school, you are more likely to be instructing a single subject and should therefore have a much deeper understanding of that field.”
Because I said teachers are not qualified, or knowledgeable on sex education, my opponent tries to argue that teachers aren’t qualified in teaching Math, English, or any other subjects. Yet, as I have proven, High school teachers are trained on the subject, and then share that knowledge with their students. It’s a subject they have been trained on, and studied, you can’t say the say about sex education, which my opponent has failed to do.
On Comprehension being ineffective.
Pro states “My opponent will not be able to prove that parents will teach their children everything they should know about sex, or that by bringing the topic of sex up in school will somehow promote sex. History shows that young people have been having sex since they've reached puberty since the beginning of humanity.”
As I have argued multiple times, many teachers expressed their feelings towards teaching sex ed, such as, themselves feeling unknowledgeable, and un-informed, and embarrassed.
To win this argument, my opponent must prove that teachers are more qualified to teach sex edu, than parents are. I myself, have already won this argument, by giving a source, that goes to medically correct. show “only 18 states require that the information be medically accurate” If their curriculum and programs are inaccurate, mistakes will be made when teens have sex. So, it is inaccurate to say, that all teachings of comprehensive sex in schools are accurate, when only 18 states require the information to be taught, to be medically correct, which then ties into my rebuttal on money. Why should we fund a program, when most of them aren't teaching children material that is medically correct?
We shouldn't have to spend $2million a year, on false teachings, when parent's are just as capable as teaching their children.
As for the immorality portion, I did not just say parent's are uncomfrtable with the exercises, but also children.
My opponent then goes to make a sensless, comparisson between Gluten, and Sex. Sex should not be taught at such a young age, because kids will become curious, and want to try things, which will take their focus off of school, wheras Gluten doesn't have the same effect, unless you have some...wierd fetish.
Pro has failed to show us why parent's are uncapable of teaching their children sex education at home. I argued that sex edu is a waste of money because 1. it's innefective and 2. parents are just as capable of teaching their own children.
I have also show that onlt 18 out of 21 states are required for their teachings to be medically correct. Why would we fund programs, that aren't even teaching a program correctly? This is how mistakes are made.
Parent's are just as, if not, more capable of teaching their own children.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|