The Instigator
Maya9
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Federal funding of abstinence-only sex education should cease

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Maya9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,817 times Debate No: 6753
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Maya9

Pro

Before I begin, I would to clarify the purpose of this debate. This is not a debate about whether or not schools should be teaching sex education. This debate deals with the fact that schools DO teach sex education.

My position in this debate is as stated above: federal funding for abstinence-only sex education should cease. My reasons for this position are as follows:

1. Most abstinence-only curricula contain errors and distortions of fact, and therefore contradict the purpose of education.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:E7kguasvRUAJ:oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

The above is a link to a report on abstinence-only education made by a House of Representatives committee in 2004. This report found that over 80% of abstinence-only contain false information. Among them, there is misrepresentation of the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancies and the spread of STDs, misrepresentation of the risk of abortions, as well as blatant errors in scientific fact. To compound the offense, many of these curricula present opinion (largely conceived from religious bias) as scientific fact, such as when life begins and stereotypes about males and females.

According to the report cited above, eleven of the thirteen abstinence-only programs most commonly used by Special Programs of Regional and National Significance — Community- Based Abstinence Education (SPRANS) in 2004 contain major errors or distortions of fact.

2. Abstinence-only education is ineffective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs among adolescents, and is therefore a waste of federal funds.

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com...

This study, which as authorized by Congress in 1997 and conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, concludes that youth participating in the four evaluated programs (which received substantial federal funding) were no more likely to abstain from sex in the four to six years after they began the study than the youths not participating in these programs.

3. The fact that many of the organizations providing abstinence-only education that are receiving federal funding are religous in nature constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

http://www.aclu.org...

In the case described above, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is being sued for providing over one million dollars in public funds to a Christian organization that whose stated mission includes using abstinence-only education to evangelize students. This use of public funds is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution as I have stated above. It is only rational to state that the federal government should not support programs when it constitutes a direct violation of the Constitution.

I have further arguments, but I will allow my opponent to make his/her arguments first and attempt to refute mine before I continue.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Okay so sex ed is ineffective huh well this little Tibet bothers me,
Abstinence-only education is ineffective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs among adolescents, and is therefore a waste of federal funds.

Ineffective huh ok so we shouldn't have it well thats kinda idiotic listen well and listen good, what if kids don't know that theres a such thing as STD or AIDS if we didn't tell them who's at fault the child or the adults?

Your answer should be adults if there is sex ed at least they know their chance's and condoms do work 90% of the time.

Also here "The fact that many of the organizations providing abstinence-only education that are receiving federal funding are religious in nature " what the heck is wrong with that just because they want your child to know that they can get STD and AIDS, and they just so happen to be religious you say that.

Mainly sex ed was made by concerned parents about there child ask an adult what they want there children to be aware of sex, this is not just the goverment and christians wanting to force there teaching.

"More than 8 in 10 parents want the schools to teach sexuality education." says new york times

http://query.nytimes.com...

Its not just christians its parent any parent so don't go blaming people because of there beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
Maya9

Pro

"Ineffective huh ok so we shouldn't have it well thats kinda idiotic listen well and listen good, what if kids don't know that theres a such thing as STD or AIDS if we didn't tell them who's at fault the child or the adults?

Your answer should be adults if there is sex ed at least they know their chance's and condoms do work 90% of the time."

What are you talking about? Did you even read my argument? My position is against abstinence-only sex education, not ALL sex education.

"what the heck is wrong with that just because they want your child to know that they can get STD and AIDS, and they just so happen to be religious you say that."

I already told you what was wrong with that. Again, I am left to wonder whether or not you bothered to read my arguments at all. Funding sectarian religious organizations with federal tax money is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Are you attempting to argue that there is nothing wrong with that?

"'More than 8 in 10 parents want the schools to teach sexuality education.' says new york times

http://query.nytimes.com......

Its not just christians its parent any parent so don't go blaming people because of there beliefs."

Again, I never said that sex education in public schools should be abolished. I stated only that abstinence-only sex education should not be paid for by government funds.

I'm not "blaming people because of there [sic] beliefs". I was talking about the Constitution.

Either READ MY INITIAL ARGUMENTS and come up with proper counter-arguments, or forfeit this debate. So far, you are wasting my time and I am beginning to resent it.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

sorry about that got confused about what i was debating i applogize. now after studying i will post my debate.

Why should we tell them not to have sex well because it is dangerous to your health even condoms dont work all the time and some dont use them.

Its kinda like jumping over fire yeah sure you can jump it but if you mess up you could die.
In this case AIDS or STD the matter of the fact is teens shouldnt have sex unless married its not safe.

Also you say its aginst the first amanment but the facts are before the rules the country was all christian.

Most of the U.S is christian today and still belives in the whole marriage thing most parents want it so the christians provide it so what its not that bad.

The fact of the matter is that this goverment was founded by christians I belive the dollor bill says in god we trust.

Just because its in the first amament says its worng doesnt mean they are not right.

Yeah its true that teens don't listen and do it anyway but what are we to not try protect them from them selfs.
Debate Round No. 2
Maya9

Pro

"Why should we tell them not to have sex well because it is dangerous to your health even condoms dont work all the time and some dont use them."

I don't know what health classes you've been taking, but sex is not in and of itself dangerous to your health. Remember, not EVERYONE is infected with an STD. If you are sure of the STD status of both yourself and your partner, a condom is not needed to prevent the spread of an STD. Condoms may not be 100% effective every time in preventing the spread of STDs, but with PROPER use (which is NOT taught in abstinence-only sex education) they are extremely effective. It is rather irrational to say that one should give up a pleasurable activity entirely on the tiny chance that you partner may have an STD and that the condom will fail. As for some people not using them, abstinence-only education does not encourage people to use condoms. In fact, it very well may DISCOURAGE them because many of these programs contain false information about their effectiveness.

"Its kinda like jumping over fire yeah sure you can jump it but if you mess up you could die."

Only in a very, VERY small percentage of cases. The only STD that is both fatal and incurable is HIV. All others can be cured with the exception of herpes, which isn't fatal. Despite the hysteria over HIV, it is actually a rare virus.

"Also you say its aginst the first amanment but the facts are before the rules the country was all christian."

That is ridiculous. The country was not ALL Christian. Deism, for example, was popular with many of the Founding Fathers. If you refer to the writings of such figures as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, you will see that the First Amendment was intending to protect the freedoms of EVERY citizen of the U.S., Christian or not. The fact that the majority of the country today is Christian is irrelevant. One of the principles the government of this country was formed upon was that the majority did not have the right to strip rights from the minority. Such actions constitute a mob rule.
joshuaXlawyer

Con

joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 8 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
i agree you won thats a load man well but hey the schools give condoms away for free they tell you that in sex ed .
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
It's a pity that I couldn't get an actual challenge. I'm still interested in debating this, if anyone is up for it.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
The phrase "an STD" is rather ambiguous. These common STDs are things like chlamydia and HPV often don't cause any symptoms, especially in men.

What I meant that the combined chance of one partner having an STD AND the condom failing is very small. Of course, the abstinence-only crowd would have you ignore condoms altogether. I doubt they would tell kids about how to get free/cheap and anonymous STD tests either.

Furthermore, the whole idea of waiting until marriage to
have sex as a means of preventing STDs is illogical. Just because one person is a virgin, that does not guarantee that their new spouse is STD-free. Do these people think that getting married is going to magically protect one spouse from getting an STD from the other?
Posted by felipmartin 8 years ago
felipmartin
"It is rather irrational to say that one should give up a pleasurable activity entirely on the tiny chance that you partner may have an STD and that the condom will fail." actually, maya9, studies show that 1 in 4 girls have an std, and if you have been having sex with anybody just because you think you wont get an std, you better get yourself tested ; )
Posted by Chuckles 8 years ago
Chuckles
Maya9, this is one instance where some negative comments and insults may be warranted...
read the arguments, people!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Maya9joshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70