Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in adolescent sex education classes.
I'm not getting much luck with this debate either. First round acceptance.
I accept this debate, may we both learn from each other, yada yada yada, etc. etc., may the force be with you and all that jazz.
condom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues
47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens in
Oakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled and
eight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV and
STIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception of
personal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills and
condom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in the
intervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,
called Reducing the Risk, was found to
be effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchers
in different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention in
urban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 th
grade health education classes. The intervention included extensive role
playing and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or using
protection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equal
length. At 18 months postintervention, the
program was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequency
of contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequency
of unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." 
Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent.
" Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found that
teenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or get
someone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed that
abstinence-only programs had “no impactson rates of sexual abstinence.” 
 Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,
contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth
2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30.
I will be attacking your sub points then your overall contentions.
subpoint 1a- yes, they do. But that doesnt mean it is ok. Teens also have bad driving habits, and are likely to try drugs as well. You are asserting that since teens are going to do it, that means we should simply encourage it. This is like a parent who gives their kid what they want to shut them up. Rather than teach, we cave. There are benfits to abstinence, but instead we reason that since they are gonna do it anyway, why bother? Let's take the driving example. since kids are going to speed anyway, why tell them not too? Just teach them how to run redlights and cut people off rather than tell them not to.
subpoint 1b- SO? We teach kids to do what they know is right rather than what everyone says. Peer Pressure doesn't make it ok. Kids also face preesure to join gangs and smoke crack, but tht doesn't mean we ought to accomodate it. Peer pressure just gives them a lame, worn out excuse to break moral code.
CONTENTION 1: While you will never eradicate teen sex, this doesnt mean we must accomadate teen sex. Teens are impulsive, and no education will stop them. Again, its like saying that since we will never eradicate bad teenage driving, we should simply teach them how to do it right. There are advantages to abstinence, so it is logical to promote them over allowing delinquent activity.
CONTENTION 2 (I found your subpoints too similar to attack individually, so I will only hit the cointention.): I know of one contraceptive that works all the time, without fail, 100%. Its called...ABSTINENCE. If you know of this, you will never have problems with HIV, AIDS, or pregnancy. You have based this on the idea that since all teens will have sex, then you cannot expect abstinence. I am 17, and I have refrained from such activity. I know several people at my school who have also. Despite your claims, sexual urges and desiures can be restrained. Thus, teaching teens to control their hormones are more fruitful than simply allowing them to rage on.
subpoint 3a- Of course teens are more accepting of this: it feeds their ego. It doesn't explain that abstinence has its own benefits, and that it is in fact more effective than contraception. Teens do no like being told they are wrong, but sometimes, they are. Appeasment is a dangerous philosophy.
subpoint 3b- This is somewhat insulting. Someone preffering abstinence doesn't make them unintelligent, it just doesn't make them liberal. A different view point than your own is not incompetent
CONTENTION 3: This education is more effective at appeasing hormonal teens than abstinence only. And this may be why abstinence only inspires sex itself, by putting teens in a defensive position. but abstinence only doesnt teach necessarily that sexual desire is wrong, rather that it is not insurmountable. The problem is with the teens themselves, and not the education. We ought not compromise morality in the name of efficency.
I want to add, that i hope i didn't come off as condescending. I fear I may have portrayed you as an immoral weakling, which was not my intention in any way. If you felt I treated you this way, I am deeply regretful of that and apologize greatly. That said, good luck!
BOP: The first thing you'll notice on my opponent's case is the lack of any. In this debate, accepting either side means defending a specific way of teaching sex education, meaning that both sides have a burden of proof of showing that one way is better than another. My opponent in this round only provides a rebuttal against my case but no defense of abstinence-only education: no data proving it is better, no arguments why it is better. Essentially, I'm already winning the argumentation point by default. Because my opponent provides no case, this round will only focus on the defense of my own.
Sub-point 1a: My opponent makes a strawman. In no way did I assert that teenage sex should be encouraged. In no way did I assert that teenage sex is morally or practically correct. In no way did I assert that there are no benefits to abstinence. Judges, if you look back into my Contention 3 and the rest of my case, I've explained that while comprehensive sex education capitalizes on abstinence, it's more practical than abstinence-only because it accounts the fact that teenage sex is not eradicable. This is why information about contraceptives is provided--so the problems that might come from the sex itself is deterred. This makes comprehensive more practical and efficient than abstinence-only. In fact, my evidence has also shown that comprehensive sex education is more effective at promoting abstinence anyway, so if abstinence is what my opponent makes paramount in the scope of this debate, comprehensive sex education is better at achieving it anyways. My opponent's analogy to driving is a false one because speeding and other traffic violations are much easier to deter, making it impractical to show teenagers how to run red lights or cut people off. Furthermore, while teenage sex can cause many problems, traffic violations can cause immediate harm and are much riskier, so it's not comparable.
Sub-point 1b: My opponent once again makes a strawman. He assumes that I'm trying to say that peer pressure makes thinks correct, which is not at all my point. Children can give into peer pressure; not all of them, mind you, but at the point where even one child is susceptible to it shows us that teenage sex is impossible to eradicate.
Contention 1: My opponent mistakenly assumes that comprehensive sex education doesn't try to capitalize on abstinence. As I've explained in my Contention 3, comprehensive sex education does promote that abstinence is 100% effective at preventing these problems. In fact, if you look through Contention 3 again, you'll see that comprehensive sex education actually deters sex better than abstinence only. I wasn't able to add this in, but in Evidence 6, the judges can read a comprehensive report analyzing several studies on the matter, and what is reported is that abstinence-only education has no proof of ever working. My Evidence 5 says the exact same thing. However, while comprehensive sex education is effective, the conductors recognize that it's not 100% effective. While, again, the point of my case is not to any way promote teen sex, the real problem that both comprehensive and abstinence-only are trying to solve in a practical lens is teen pregnancy and HIV transmission. Because comprehensive recognizes that it will never be eradicated (and my opponent himself agrees it can never be eradicated), it provides a "Plan B" in order to deter. Again, as I've shown you with my evidence, it's effective at doing so.
Contention 2: This rebuttal is another strawman. I said that teenage sex is always going to happen. I never said that all teenagers are going to have sex regardless during the relative time of the current age. If I did, I'd be contradicting myself because my evidence points out that there's even a chunk of adolescents who practice abstinence. This doesn't erase the fact that the other chunk engages in sexual activity, and in many occassions, the reasons why they're not able to prevent teen pregnancy or HIV transmission is because they have no clue about how contraceptives work. Abstinence-only cannot solve for this because it doesn't teach about contraceptives. The crux of abstinence-only is that it assumes that by only teaching abstinence and telling kids about all the bad things that could happen, it will promote abstinence in all teenagers. However, this is far from the truth.
Sub-point 3a: Another strawman. The point of this sub-point wasn't to prove that teenagers are more accepting, but that comprehensive is effective at inspiring abstinence. Whether or not teenagers are more accepting, the bottom line is that comprehensive WORKS.
Sub-point 3b: Another strawman. I'm not saying that practicing abstinence makes you unintelligent. In fact, I would argue that those who do are actually very wise. I'm saying that abstinence-only is ineffective at reaching abstinence or the resolution to the problems that come with teen sex.
Contention 3: Comprehensive teaches the exact same thing. The problem here is that my opponent is bringing a morality lens into a practicality debate. Excuse my more or less humorous allusion, but if anyone's seen the commercial for 21st Century Insurance, there's a commercial that says: "Car insurance isn't sexy. It's practical." It's sort of the same thing for sex education. It's not meant to be moral, appeasing, or "sexy." It's supposed to be practical. If we're looking at a moral sense, perhaps my opponent is right (depending on your scope of morality). However, even if we should compromise morality, we shouldn't compromise practicality in the name of something that wasn't meant to be moral in the first place. Abstinence-only isn't practical, and everything in my Contention leads toward that conclusion.
I was not in any way offended by anything my opponent said. If the judges are in any way considering providing the conduct point to me, please understand that it shouldn't be done because my opponent was insulting. I wasn't insulted in any way, and my opponent made sure to include that. What I will point out, however, is that it doesn't seem like my opponent isn't arguing about sex education at all. He's arguing for capitalizing abstinence. The problem is that as I've explained in my case, comprehensive sex education solves for exactly what my opponent is looking for. My opponent is reading this debate through a moral lens for something about practicality, so it's evident that my opponent is even looking at this debate through the correct format. My opponent has made a litany of misconceptions and misunderstandings about my case, and in the end, he hasn't argued anything I said. Furthermore, he has nothing to support his side of the BOP defending abstinence-only education. QED, the argumentation vote is mine.
smash forfeited this round.
Please extend all arguments across the flow.
smash forfeited this round.
This is the final round of the debate, and my opponent has answered to absolutely nothing in my case. Henceforth, this debate should go to me. Vote PRO.
smash forfeited this round.
|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:||7||0|