The Instigator
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
gerrandesquire
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Laws Inplace Which Prohibit Sex Among Teens do a Good Job at Reducing the Amount of Teens Having Sex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,926 times Debate No: 13242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

FREEDO

Con

=== INTRODUCTION ===

What do you know...I actually fit the title.

In this debate I will be arguing that laws in-place which prohibit teens from having sex actually do a poor job at accomplishing it.

My opponent will be arguing otherwise.

We shall both have a burden of proof for supporting our side.

As I usually do, I will let my opponent go first.
gerrandesquire

Pro

Thank you for challenging me to this debate.

I don't think the argument requires any definitions of any sort, but still.

Law: legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity
Teens: A person between the ages of 13 and 19; an adolescent.

And we are arguing on the resolution that the laws in place which prohibit sex among teens do a good job at the amount of sex the teens do- as opposed to the situation when the laws would not be there.

Teenage refers the age of 13-19, a time when puberty starts (and continues). It is often a time of confusions, a time when the person is still identifying himself. Major physical and psychological changes are taking place throughout this period. The adolescent is nervous and unsteady in the sudden and major physical changes.

Now, this is where the effect of laws come into place. Laws restricting the age limit for sex, they are like a boundary. A person who is crossing the boundary knows that he is crossing the legal boundary to do the act. i.e. the act is not supported by law.

Now, just for a moment, imagine that in this world, there are no laws, no legal documents setting forth the minimum age limit for consensual sex. That means, in a household, the minimum age limit would be logically set forth by the parents. Thus there would be a fair amount of teens who lose their virginity at 14. Without any opposition, any stigma. And just remember-they are teens, who live in the high school. Word spreads. Suddenly they are cool, their parents are cooler, and since many their counterparts who are not allowed- well, resentment breeds, they feel angry at their parents who are not as cool, and being a teenager, they feel angry because ‘they are being controlled by their parents', ‘when they are perfectly capable of living their life themselves'. Relation with parents detoriates.

At 13.(or lower)

Now laws, they attach a stigma on those breaking it. They are ‘criminals'. And that is not a very enviable place to be. Whatever the place be, there are some things that no one wants to be. And I'm not talking of psycho-killers; I'm talking of normal healthy individuals, who make up the majority of the population. No one wants to be a criminal. Obviously, the amount of teens doing sex would go low. I don't see what is there to prove about this. Laws have some effect. Laws are there= people following laws are there= less people not following laws are there.

This is simple common sense.

Also, the teens who are losing their virginity at the age below that specified by the law know that legally they have no rights, if the sex leads to pregnancy. A scared girl doing it for the first time will consider it.

And lastly, laws specifying age of consent prohibit sex being ‘sold' to minors, which again lowers the amount.

Sources: www.dictionary.net
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Con

=== RESPONSES & ARGUMENTS===

//Now, this is where the effect of laws come into place. Laws restricting the age limit for sex, they are like a boundary. A person who is crossing the boundary knows that he is crossing the legal boundary to do the act. i.e. the act is not supported by law.//

I beg to differ. What facts do you have to support this little hypothesis of yours? You see, I have this RADICAL theory myself; teenagers...are horny. They are horny, it's easy for them not to get caught and if their moral principles allow them they will obviously go for it, given the opportunity. In-fact, a government study has confirmed that about 1 in every 3 ninth-graders has had intercourse. [1] And that's not even counting the millions of them who have chosen to have oral sex instead.

//Now, just for a moment, imagine that in this world, there are no laws, no legal documents setting forth the minimum age limit for consensual sex. That means, in a household, the minimum age limit would be logically set forth by the parents. Thus there would be a fair amount of teens who lose their virginity at 14. Without any opposition, any stigma. And just remember-they are teens, who live in the high school. Word spreads. Suddenly they are cool, their parents are cooler, and since many their counterparts who are not allowed- well, resentment breeds, they feel angry at their parents who are not as cool, and being a teenager, they feel angry because ‘they are being controlled by their parents', ‘when they are perfectly capable of living their life themselves'. Relation with parents detoriates.//

Lol, nice story you got there. Not only is it a big stretch that obviously isn't going to happen to most people and a blatant appeal to emotion but...it helps your case...how? All you're doing is ATTEMPTING to make a case against lowering the age of consent. That's not what this debate is about.

//Now laws, they attach a stigma on those breaking it. They are ‘criminals'. And that is not a very enviable place to be. Whatever the place be, there are some things that no one wants to be. And I'm not talking of psycho-killers; I'm talking of normal healthy individuals, who make up the majority of the population. No one wants to be a criminal. Obviously, the amount of teens doing sex would go low. I don't see what is there to prove about this. Laws have some effect. Laws are there= people following laws are there= less people not following laws are there.//

HUGE fail. The assertion that laws will solve any problem(not that teen sex is a problem) by simply outlawing it is incredibly fallacious and outdated. In-fact, in many cases it actually makes the problem worse. Law-makers attempt to reduce crime by out-lawing guns, but it's a fact that doing so actually increases crime rates! [2] Like-wise, it's glaringly evident that laws aren't going to have much of an effect on most people against doing something they really want to do, ESPECIALLY when the supposed crime is non-violent. Marijuana is illegal in the United States, yet it's the largest cash crop we have. [3] It's the hard to swallow truth but believe it or not people don't really care that much about laws, aside from trivial matters, what people care about is following their own moral codes.

//Also, the teens who are losing their virginity at the age below that specified by the law know that legally they have no rights, if the sex leads to pregnancy. A scared girl doing it for the first time will consider it.//

Uuum, you know, there's this thing called protection. It's really neat. Keeps you from getting pregnant. A matter of fact, it turns out that teens who have sex have a less chance of getting pregnant than adults, fancy that. [4] Turns out first timers are actually more responsible. Who would have known?!

I turn it over to Pro.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://www.cdc.gov...
2. http://www.debate.org...
3. http://abcnews.go.com...
4. http://www.montrealgazette.com...
gerrandesquire

Pro

"I beg to differ. What facts do you have to support this little hypothesis of yours? You see, I have this RADICAL theory myself; teenagers...are horny. They are horny, it's easy for them not to get caught and if their moral principles allow them they will obviously go for it, given the opportunity. In-fact, a government study has confirmed that about 1 in every 3 ninth-graders has had intercourse. [1] And that's not even counting the millions of them who have chosen to have oral sex instead."

Okay, so your point here is that 1 in every ninth grader has had intercourse. And that if laws would not have been there, the amount would have been lower? We are debating the stance that laws lower the amount of sex teens undergo. So that little piece of ‘study' does not prove anything.

"Lol, nice story you got there. Not only is it a big stretch that obviously isn't going to happen to most people and a blatant appeal to emotion but...it helps your case...how? All you're doing is ATTEMPTING to make a case against lowering the age of consent. That's not what this debate is about."

Actually this was just the setup. The main data was below. But it does help my case. If there were no laws, no specific age to ‘legally' have consensual sex, obviously there would be a wide variety of opinions. I was merely pointing out the confusion that would lead to. And also, how that could pressurize some people into doing things they wouldn't normally do. No one wants to be a criminal. And it is not a ‘big stretch'. It's actually quite logical.

"HUGE fail. The assertion that laws will solve any problem(not that teen sex is a problem) by simply outlawing it is incredibly fallacious and outdated. In-fact, in many cases it actually makes the problem worse. Law-makers attempt to reduce crime by out-lawing guns, but it's a fact that doing so actually increases crime rates! [2] Like-wise, it's glaringly evident that laws aren't going to have much of an effect on most people against doing something they really want to do, ESPECIALLY when the supposed crime is non-violent. Marijuana is illegal in the United States, yet it's the largest cash crop we have. [3]"

You have actually provided some real FAIL data to support your cause, because there is no way one can determine that. There are huge fails in the methodology. Till date, no study has determined if the laws have any negative effect on the crime rate of a country. For the whole argument on this point, refer to link 2, for summary of the argument, refer to link 1, and the basic point of each link is written below.

"…any change in crime rate induced by concealed handgun laws will depend on demographic, social, and economic specifities of the observation units. So these laws might lead to increases in crime in some jurisdictions and decreases in others. The results that assume these effects are identical across all counties are, therefore, invalid."

So, yeah. Your point is a Fail. (a side note: your debate with Felicia was highly amusing.)

" It's the hard to swallow truth but believe it or not people don't really care that much about laws, aside from trivial matters, what people care about is following their own moral codes."

And you still have to prove it.

"Uuum, you know, there's this thing called protection. It's really neat. Keeps you from getting pregnant. A matter of fact, it turns out that teens who have sex have a less chance of getting pregnant than adults, fancy that. [4] Turns out first timers are actually more responsible. Who would have known?!"

And you know, the thing called protection is NOT fool proof. There is a fair amount of chance that it will slip off during the act and will lead to pregnancy. Or STD. A warning label written over the thing provides you ample warning of that.

Try looking at the fine print. (Keeps you from suing them if it fails).

And your 4th point. The teens have less chance getting pregnant, as compared to adults, well, not only is it NO point at all, since it does not support your case in any way, (until you start arguing that teens having sex are at NO risk), it doesn't matter. Because till the time there is a risk, someone is scared, the laws will still matter. Because ‘someone' knows that they legally have no rights if sex leads to pregnancy, and hence my previous point stands unrefuted.

I would like to point out that Con has not given any point in his defense. He's just refuted my points.

http://hsx.sagepub.com...
http://113.212.161.150/elibrary/Library/Law_Economic/Rubin_The.pdf

"And lastly, laws specifying age of consent prohibit sex being ‘sold' to minors, which again lowers the amount."

My points still stand unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Con

=== RESPONSES & ARGUMENTS ===

//And that if laws would not have been there, the amount would have been lower?//

No, no, no. My job here is not to show that there would be less teen sex if the laws were repealed, it's just that the laws do not do a very effective job towards their intended ends.

//But it does help my case. If there were no laws, no specific age to ‘legally' have consensual sex, obviously there would be a wide variety of opinions. I was merely pointing out the confusion that would lead to. And also, how that could pressurize some people into doing things they wouldn't normally do.//

How does that help your case in any way? Again, this debate is not about whether or not we should have age of consent laws. Stay on track.

//Till date, no study has determined if the laws have any negative effect on the crime rate of a country.//

OH REALLY?

[1] Harvard Law School study
[2] University of Chicago study
[3] Future of Freedom Foundation sites studies and statistics
[4] CFIF compilation of worldwide data

Yeah...anyway...lets not turn this into a gun-control debate. Trust me, you'd lose.

//And you still have to prove it.//

Gun-control laws do the opposite of what they intend. You tried to refute this, you failed. And even though you said I had fail sources, you didn't even address my marijuana argument. Possibly because you know you can't refute it. You should have known that about my gun-control argument. Face it, laws don't always do what they intend and can even do the opposite. The laws of man are not laws of nature, they are far from well-tuned and inherent principles. Now, I've done my part, whether you recognize it or not I hope the voters will; it's up to you to prove otherwise.

//And you know, the thing called protection is NOT fool proof. There is a fair amount of chance that it will slip off during the act and will lead to pregnancy. Or STD. A warning label written over the thing provides you ample warning of that.//

Are you serious?...Are you seriously serious? Not only are you straying off course, AGAIN, but you fail in doing it, AGAIN.

When a male condom is used properly it has a 97% effectiveness rate at preventing pregnancy and 99.9% effectiveness at preventing HIV. [5,6] On top of this, birth-control pills are 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy.[7] When used in combination it would be more likely for someone to have a heart-attack result from sex than pregnancy.

// The teens have less chance getting pregnant, as compared to adults, well, not only is it NO point at all, since it does not support your case in any way//

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm the one making pointless arguments? Haha, good one. The fact that teens are more responsible with birth-control than adults directly helps my case because it was in response to your mis-guided claim that a female under the age limit would be intimidated by the law because they wouldn't have any legal rights to a child which may result from it. Alas, as I have shown, not only is protection extremely effective but teens are more likely to use it. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

//I would like to point out that Con has not given any point in his defense. He's just refuted my points.//

An interesting...and baffling assertion you make there. I'll let the voters be the judge of that.

//"And lastly, laws specifying age of consent prohibit sex being ‘sold' to minors, which again lowers the amount."

My points still stand unrefuted.//

First off, you can't say "again" because you haven't provided any evidence as to how the laws lower the amount in any way; so far there's only been theoretical rambling that's really gotten you nowhere.

Second, when you imply that the minors are having less an opportunity to have sex than adults because they can't buy it you would be implying that if they were allowed then both teens and adults would have more equal opportunity. That simply isn't so. I argue that teens naturally have a heightened opportunity for sexual interactions mostly due to their increased drive for the like and also the fact that most attend a public school atmosphere which would render more opportunity than, say, ... a job atmosphere.

Third--and I saved this for last for humor-value--selling sex is called prostitution...and that's illegal for adults too. lol

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://www.law.harvard.edu...
2. http://hematite.com...
3. http://www.fff.org...
4. http://www.mcsm.org...
5. http://www.youngwomenshealth.org...
6. http://www.avert.org...
7. http://www.webmd.com...
gerrandesquire

Pro

"No, no, no. My job here is not to show that there would be less teen sex if the laws were repealed, it's just that the laws do not do a very effective job towards their intended ends."
That would beg the definition of ‘effective'. I took it to mean, yes, there would be people who would not follow the law, but overall, it would indeed lower the amount of sex occurring in the state. So if you provided a data stating that X% people at the age of 16 are losing their virginity. So what? What do we compare it with?
I remember writing in the beginning of the debate:
"And we are arguing on the resolution that the laws in place which prohibit sex among teens do a good job at the amount of sex the teens do- AS OPPOSED TO A SITUATION WHERE LAWS WOULD NOT BE THERE."

"Again, this debate is not about whether or not we should have age of consent laws."

???
If the laws are effective, we should have laws. Laws are effective because they provide a universal age at which IF you lose virginity, there is no social stigma. Makes it easier. Children who are not so sure, (Why am I repeating everything I say again and again?) will be affected by the legal provision. Which means that the amount lowers. AND as I said in the para, if laws were not there, the situation could pressurize some teens into doing things they wouldn't normally do, which would actually increase the amount, pointing that laws help to lower the amount.
"[1] Harvard Law School study
[2] University of Chicago study
[3] Future of Freedom Foundation sites studies and statistics
[4] CFIF compilation of worldwide data"
OH my god!? Are you seriously trying to cut my sentences short and replying to the part which was actually PROVED? I replied to the whole argument WITH sources, and you just wrote the argument and inserted exclamation mark.

I said that the *studies* are Wrong, and they provide wrong results because - and I quote-
"…any change in crime rate induced by concealed handgun laws will depend on demographic, social, and economic specifities of the observation units. So these laws might lead to increases in crime in some jurisdictions and decreases in others. THE RESULTS THAT ASSUME THAT THE EFFECTS ARE IDENTICAL ACROSS ALL COUNTRIES, ARE THEREFORE, INVALID."
Quote end.
(Sources: http://hsx.sagepub.com......
http://113.212.161.150/elibrary/Library/Law_Economic/Rubin_The.pdf)
Please don't resort to this.

"Yeah...anyway...lets not turn this into a gun-control debate. Trust me, you'd lose."

With the tricks you have, clearly. (note: sarcasm)

"Gun-control laws do the opposite of what they intend. You tried to refute this, you failed."
Uh huh… keep it coming…
"And even though you said I had fail sources, you didn't even address my marijuana argument. Possibly because you know you can't refute it. You should have known that about my gun-control argument. "
It's funny to see how smug you sound.

"Face it, laws don't always do what they intend and can even do the opposite. The laws of man are not laws of nature, they are far from well-tuned and inherent principles. "
You know what, I never even thought of providing examples to support my side, possibly because it is so obvious. However:
Law of driving on the right side of the road: Success.
Law of filing a divorce: Success
Domestic Violence Act: Success
What does all this prove? Nothing. Same way your marijuana argument proved nothing. And that's why I didn't reply to it.

"Now, I've done my part, whether you recognize it or not I hope the voters will"
Sure they will.

"Are you serious?...Are you seriously serious? Not only are you straying off course, AGAIN, but you fail in doing it, AGAIN."

HOW in the Name of God is this of course? I say that ‘a scared girl doing it for the first time will consider if the act is illegal'. You say ‘there's a thing called protection'. I say that ‘it is not foolproof'. And I'm straying off-course.
Wow.
"When a male condom is used properly it has a 97% effectiveness rate at preventing pregnancy and 99.9% effectiveness at preventing HIV. [5,6] On top of this, birth-control pills are 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy.[7] When used in combination it would be more likely for someone to have a heart-attack result from sex than pregnancy."

I'll tell that to my friend who found himself infected with AIDS, AFTER using a condom.
Guess some people do fall into that 3% category.
And my point of making that assertion was – till someone is afraid- laws will matter.

"An interesting...and baffling assertion you make there. I'll let the voters be the judge of that."

Okay.

"Second, when you imply that the minors are having less an opportunity to have sex than adults because they can't buy it you would be implying that if they were allowed then both teens and adults would have more equal opportunity. That simply isn't so. I argue that teens naturally have a heightened opportunity for sexual interactions mostly due to their increased drive for the like and also the fact that most attend a public school atmosphere which would render more opportunity than, say, ... a job atmosphere."

Actually, I meant prostitution.

"Selling sex is called prostitution...and that's illegal for adults too."
Not in Bangladesh, not in Argentina, Bolivia, Columbia, Singapore, Ecuador, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Indonesia, need I go on?
Positive effect of laws in Bexar:
http://www.sanantonio.gov...

Sources:
http://prostitution.procon.org...
http://www.helium.com...
http://www.avert.org...
Debate Round No. 3
FREEDO

Con

=== RESPONSES & ARGUMENTS ===

//That would beg the definition of ‘effective'.//

Effective is indeed a relative term but I think the most practical application would be for the laws to have an equal "bang for the buck". It costs time, money and resources to outlaw something and enforce it. If more is going into it than coming out then it really isn't doing a good job at what it's intended to accomplish.

//If the laws are effective, we should have laws//

Completely irrelevant within the context of this debate. This is not a "what should" debate, it is a "what is" debate. There may be a rational conclusion outside of this debate that if the laws don't work then we should have them, but discussing such a thing in this debate is void of any relevance.

//I said that the *studies* are Wrong, and they provide wrong results because - and I quote-
"…any change in crime rate induced by concealed handgun laws will depend on demographic, social, and economic specifities of the observation units. So these laws might lead to increases in crime in some jurisdictions and decreases in others. THE RESULTS THAT ASSUME THAT THE EFFECTS ARE IDENTICAL ACROSS ALL COUNTRIES, ARE THEREFORE, INVALID."//

Sorry, I forgot, putting something in quotation automatically makes it true. Did you read the studies? Did you even open the links? I did. And I can tell you that they offer concrete evidence which is accepted by the highly acclaimed organizers of these scientific peer-reviewed studies as having a definitive confirmation towards my assertion.

//With the tricks you have, clearly. (note: sarcasm)//

Come on, now you're just getting desperate. Try to refrain from making debates personnel.

//It's funny to see how smug you sound.//

I would have really liked you to address that argument. I'm sure the voters would too. Maybe you can do so in this last round.

//You know what, I never even thought of providing examples to support my side, possibly because it is so obvious. However:
Law of driving on the right side of the road: Success.
Law of filing a divorce: Success
Domestic Violence Act: Success
What does all this prove? Nothing. Same way your marijuana argument proved nothing. And that's why I didn't reply to it.//

My argument was put forth in response to your allegation that simply having laws creates a good incentive for people not to break them because they will be labeled as criminal, which is completely false and the marijuana argument proves that. Please reply to it or this debate is just going to have a whole in it.

//HOW in the Name of God is this of course?//

Please refer yourself to the title of this debate.

//I'll tell that to my friend who found himself infected with AIDS, AFTER using a condom.//

May I ask how old this friend is? And also, may I suggest, that the condom may not have been used properly. I did after all say that the statistics applies to properly used condoms. The most common way of mis-using a condom is using one that is past it's expiration point--something that would be less likely to occur for someone who is new or relatively new to the experience, since I have shown that they tend to actually be more sexually responsible.

//Guess some people do fall into that 3% category.//

I believe you mean 0.01% ;)

//Actually, I meant prostitution.//

Ermm..I know...

"Not in Bangladesh, not in Argentina, Bolivia, Columbia, Singapore, Ecuador, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Indonesia, need I go on?"

Oh, goodness, I just realized that we never clarified whether this was the United States or the world. It was actually my intention for this debate to be about American laws. I apologize for my Americanized mind-set which often forgets that America isn't planet Earth.

However, it should be pointed out that 60% of the Earth's population live in countries where prostitution is illegal. So, as a generality, prostitution is illegal in the world. [1]

//Positive effect of laws in Bexar:
http://www.sanantonio.gov......//

Since my opponent unfortunately provided no summary for this study as to create any comprehensible argument, I will have to summarize it instead, for the sake of the viewers.
This is a study done by the San Antonia government which details the progressing and declining levels of teen pregnancies within Baxar county, Texas. It shows that, overall, teen pregnancies have gone down considerably in the last couple decades.

Now for my rebuttal. My opponent makes the assertion that her source shows the positive effects of the laws. Somehow I doubt that my opponent has even read the source, which I did. The study makes absolutely no correlation between increased law implementation(which there's nothing presented to suggest there has been) and the lowering in levels of teen pregnancy. In-fact, the study makes absolutely no assertion at all about how the change in levels occur, it only describes that they do and by what nature. [2] Thus my opponent's assertion falls far short of any credibility.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://prostitution.procon.org...
2. http://www.sanantonio.gov...

=== CLOSING STATEMENT ===

I enjoyed this debate I think it was a good one considering that there isn't much material that either side could go on. I thank my opponent for the experience.

Voters, do yo thang, unless that thing includes vote-bombing.
gerrandesquire

Pro

Effective is indeed a relative term but I think the most practical application would be for the laws to have an equal "bang for the buck". It costs time, money and resources to outlaw something and enforce it. If more is going into it than coming out then it really isn't doing a good job at what it's intended to accomplish.

Which , coming back to my point, wasn't proved in your study.

"Sorry, I forgot, putting something in quotation automatically makes it true. Did you read the studies? Did you even open the links? I did. And I can tell you that they offer concrete evidence which is accepted by the highly acclaimed organizers of these scientific peer-reviewed studies as having a definitive confirmation towards my assertion.
I would have really liked you to address that argument. I'm sure the voters would too. Maybe you can do so in this last round."

Okay, listen closely. This is an abstract from your link no. 1. http://www.law.harvard.edu...
(Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser report)
1. …attribute much of the drop in violent crime that started in 1990s to the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, which they argue resulted in the non‐birth of vast numbers of children who would have been disproportionately involved in violent crime had they existed in the 1990s…
…The Lott‐Mustard studies did not address the Donohue‐Levitt thesis…
2. Lott and Mustard did account, however, for two peculiarly American phenomena which many people believed may have been responsible for the 1990s crime reduction: the dramatic increase of the United States prison population and the number of executions. The prison population in the United States tripled during this time period, jumping from approximately 100 prisoners per 100,000 in the late 1970s to more than 300 per 100,000 people in the general population in the early 1990s.
3.In addition, executions in the United States soared from approximately 5 per year in the early 1980s to more than 27 per year in the early 1990s.33 Neither of these trends is reflected in Commonwealth countries.
…Although the *reason is obscured*, the undeniable result is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, has plummeted in the United States over the past 15 years
…Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States' approach are the most important…

See? Even the researches that you provided, accept that there is no concrete proof that stringent gun laws have a positive effect on the soaring crime rates. Now read my previous arguments and you'll understand what I was trying to make you understand.

From link No. 2: http://hematite.com... …The evidence indicates that the effect varies both with a county's level of crime and its population…

Link 3 http://www.fff.org...
is basically just stating the facts unidimentionally, not researching into reason for the decreasing crime rate with lenient laws in America, as was done by link 1 and 2, and hence can be cast aside.

Link 4 http://www.mcsm.org...
is basically link 1, and has been answered.

"My argument was put forth in response to your allegation that simply having laws creates a good incentive for people not to break them because they will be labeled as criminal, which is completely false and the marijuana argument proves that. Please reply to it or this debate is just going to have a whole in it."

Since you insist. While assessing the effect of laws, one has to account for its… target audience. Growing Marijuana has immense profits, and is highly beneficial for the ‘money minded businessmen'. Okay? So, the target audience for that law is money minded businessmen, who probably have great power and money. Passing the law that outlaws production of marijuana is asking THEM to stop. Teenagers are more susceptible, and asking them to stop , or more adequately, asking them to *refrain* from having sex till a certain age is a completely different matter. Teenagers vs businessmen. Asking to stop production and kill huge profits vs asking to delay an act. they are two different poles and hence can't be compared.

"May I ask how old this friend is? And also, may I suggest, that the condom may not have been used properly. I did after all say that the statistics applies to properly used condoms. The most common way of mis-using a condom is using one that is past it's expiration point--something that would be less likely to occur for someone who is new or relatively new to the experience, since I have shown that they tend to actually be more sexually responsible."

He is 16 now, but was infected when he was 14. Most of the first time users use condom improperly. In a research done by Hatherall and colleagues(link), 6% of the kids (who had reported that they used a condom the last time they had sex) said they put the condom on after vaginal penetration -- and 6% said they continued vaginal penetration after condom removal. nearly a third of the kids put condoms on too late at least one time during the six-month diary period. And nearly one in 10 took them off too soon.
http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.condomman.com...

and a rather interesting query:
http://www.healthexpertadvice.org...

who would have guessed?

"Not in Bangladesh, not in Argentina, Bolivia, Columbia, Singapore, Ecuador, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Indonesia, need I go on?"

Oh, goodness, I just realized that we never clarified whether this was the United States or the world. It was actually my intention for this debate to be about American laws. I apologize for my Americanized mind-set which often forgets that America isn't planet Earth.

However, it should be pointed out that 60% of the Earth's population live in countries where prostitution is illegal. So, as a generality, prostitution is illegal in the world. [1]

That doesn't make any sense. 40% of the countries don't have any identity?

//Positive effect of laws in Bexar:
http://www.sanantonio.gov.........//

"In-fact, the study makes absolutely no assertion at all about how the change in levels occur, it only describes that they do and by what nature. [2] "

Since this was immediately after the time Bexar implemented laws, I would have thought that the correlation was clear. I apologize for not explaining the link, I didn't know it was necessary.

I enjoyed this debate too, and would hope that the voters read the entire debate and vote right.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
oh good, because when i read it now, it just sounded like rambling.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I understood it.
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
hey, i just realized, is my argument on gun control, (which was copied and pasted from the links you provided), is it understandable?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
lol
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
EREDRFFRFGFUy
ttr
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
This is why educations should be the priority.
Posted by Felicity 6 years ago
Felicity
I'm a teen but I really didn't know that we can serve jail time for sex. Seems stupid to be incriminated by laws that are meant to protect us. For that matter, I don't even know the age of consent in my state. I'm a supporter of choosing abstinence (independent of law), but it seems to me that the laws aren't a very good deterent for teens if we don't know about them :(
Posted by gerrandesquire 6 years ago
gerrandesquire
agreed.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Laws that prohibit sexuality are the de jure form of the social norms that do the same.

They work to an extent, teens will still have sex just no where near as much as they would without said laws.
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
Very true about the exploitation... But there is a double standard in a social context. Men are seen as studs for more "sexual conquests," whereas women are seen as "sluts." But at the same time, with the law in place, people will not talk about it either in a safety context. Then what's next? Creating laws that only certain people could be impregnated?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 6 years ago
C-Mach
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
FREEDOgerrandesquireTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50