The Instigator
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
DAN123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The Reproductive Health Bills should be passed into law in the Philippines.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,482 times Debate No: 17837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

jm_notguilty

Pro

Okay, I welcome my opponent, DAN123, in this interesting debate about the RH Bill, one of the most heated, maybe the most discussed topic in the Philippines, and first in DDO (as far as I know). I thank my opponent for waiting for me to challenge him on this one, I wish him luck.

Debating Info:

Standard debating rules/ethics will apply. 72 hours of argumentation, 8K character limit, RFD voting style lasting indefinitely.

R1- Acceptance/Opening (No evidence should be introduced yet).
R2/R3- Arguments/Rebuttals (The climax of this debate).
R4- Closings/Summaries (No new arguments are to be made).

Defnitions:

Reproductive Health Bill: (Abb. RH Bill)- Are Philippine bills aiming to guarantee universal access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care. [1]
Reproductive Health: Similar to sexual health/hygiene. Please refer to [2]

Opening:

In this debate, I will prove that this bill is important to the Filipino community, as it helps ensure and protect the health and lives of women, especially mothers. It promotes freedom of choice, like families who want to have a small family. It can save babies by preventing abortion, induced ones from unintended and unwanted pregnancies. It prevents sickness, like cancer, AIDS and other diseases, sexual or otherwise. It also gives sexual education to children, positive ones, to ensure and guide them about sexual intercourse and their bad effects. These are some of the arguments I am introducing in this debate, I look forward for your acceptance and reply. Thanks.

Sidenote (Readers/Voters >READ<): The sources mention aboved are: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now, since most viewers have no idea on what this is, I recommend they read the article and other sources of information about the RH Bill. I urge them to take their time reading and speculating this debate as it is a contentious debate in our country and we need some feedback from other debaters worldwide.
DAN123

Con

OK, I accept.


And my opponent is right about the RH bill being one of the most controversial discussed topic here in the philippines.
I also wish my opponent luck. May this debate be a good one. I also thank the instigator for issuing this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
jm_notguilty

Pro

I see that my opponent has waived his opening arguments, so I'll just move on and go with it.

Arguments as to why this bill should be passed:


The Reproductive Health Bills will be abbreviated as 'RH Bill', and will be recognized as said in section 1 of the bill: SEC. 1. Title: This Act shall be known as the “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011.” [1]

*1 Sexual/Reproductive Health Care Programs: Promotes positive sex education and other health services (Free. Medical or Legal). [1]

Conclusion: The bill provides accurate sex education to youths, as said in Sec. 16 of the Bill: Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education. Since most youths enter relationships (or marriage) without any knowledge or benefit of the orderly reccomendation of schools or social institutes, and because of human nature, and the promiscuity of teenagers, and their knowledge on sex, it affects their decisions as a result. Lots of young people could lose their future, health or probably their lives if this bill isn't passed.

The section of the bill also states that sex educations for youths of the right age will be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal educational system. The local governement agencies in the Philippines will formulate the Sex Education curriculum, which will be taught in both public and private schools. The bill also states 12 subjects that will be included in Sex Education, like valuing information, responsible parenthood/relationships, AIDS awareness and other diseases, population and development, rights of children/women, etc.

Sec. 23 of the bill also provides Sexual and Reproductive Health Programs for Persons With Disabilities which gives them information on their rights and their health, teaching them using the methods on how to teach PWDs.
Sec. 24 of the bill states that we have a right to Reproductive Health Care Information, and that "The government shall guarantee the right of any person to provide or receive non-fraudulent information about the availability of reproductive health care services, including family planning, and prenatal care."
Once it is passed, local government agencies will construct a campaign all over the country to make the Filipino people aware of their rights, giving them knowledge and promoting reproductive health rights (like family planning, etc.), also giving them free legal advice on this topic, like on Sec. 22, which gives Pro Bono Services for Indigent Women, legal and medical services, etc.

*2 Protects/Saves the health of the people (esp. women).

Conclusion: As I said, the bill promotes health care. Women are affected and are victimized more when being pregnant, complications arise during pregnancy, which are serious enough to hospitalize or kill women [2]. According to WHO, Women die every minute, at least 1 woman dies from complications, and for every female who dies during pregnancy, around 20 more suffer, this is a result of complications when giving birth [3]. This Bill saves women from being raped then possibly getting HIV/AIDS or some other disease or falsed pregnancy. This Bill saves lives. From cancer and HIV/AIDS. All these are part of RH education and care.

*3 Protects/Saves babies

Conclusion: When women are saved from pregnancy complications, the rate of infant deaths will diminish. the bill saves babies who die during childbirth, saves babies from premature childbirth, it saves them from poverty, from being tortured and being raised by unfit parents who endager their welfare.

*4 By popular votes of the majority of the Filipino people.

Conclusion: The Filipinos have spoken, according to a recent survey, 82% of the Filipino people say family planning method is a personal choice and 73% want information on legal methods available from government. They believe that no one should interfere with their right to choose, that the RH Bill is an imprortant bill which needs to be passed [4] (Please refer to that link for more info on that matter).

*5 Freedom of Choice: A fundamental right.
Conclusion: The bill promotes this right and responds to the majority who want smaller families. Most couples nowadays in the Philippines want smaller families but end up with families larger than what they desire. It promotes family empowerment, family planning and responsible parenthood. It can develop and solve the population issue in the Philippines. Thewill promote equity in health through the health institutions as I said in *1. Removing them of this right is abuse of democracy.

Some arguments against RH Bill that I will refute:

"Contraceptives (particularly condoms) are bad."

How are they bad? Condoms is arguably one the best inventions of man to date. It helps us from HIV/AIDs and cancer.

"Sex Education will corrupt the minds of our children."

We live in the age where youths are in touch with technology, just leave them alone bored and they'll search for pornography and other stuffs which are more corrupt than this. Sex education, as I said it, helps the youngsters by giving them accurate knowledge on Reproductive health/hygiene.

"Once this bill is passed, people will engage in premarital sex."

As if this never happened before in our country. Premarital sex happens everywhere, as you read this, probably a million people are having premarital sex right now.

"The RH Bill is wrong because it is immoral, it is against God."

Sure, 90% of the nation might be Catholic, but that whopping 10% includes other religions, and almost 3% of that 10% have no religion [5]. The Philippines is a secular country, and according to the 1986 PH constitution (Article II, Section 6), secularism should be inviolable [6]. It is not immoral, as I said in my previous arguments. It helps people.

"It's abortion."

Contraception is NOT Abortion. Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy [7], whereas contraception are techniques and methods used to prevent human fertilization [8]. There's the difference. I leave my opponent to refute some of these arguments.

Sources used:

[1] http://rhbill.org...
[2] http://www.huggies.com.au...
[3] http://www.who.int...
[4] http://www.sws.org.ph...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I await my opponent's arguments. Thank you.
DAN123

Con

1Sexual/Reproductive Health Care Programs: Promotes positive sex education and other health services (Free. Medical or Legal).

First of all i would like my opponent know that the Philippine constitution says, andclearly says thatthe State’s full support for the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for the development of moral character (Article II, Section 12). For many Filipinos, sexuality is inseparable from morality. Under the cited constitutional guarantee, thus, parents have the primary right and duty to teach matters of sexuality and reproductive health to their children, consistent with their religious convictions and moral beliefs. the government isonlythe supporting role. In this bill sex education is mandatory. the government develops this curriculum and parents are not involved when actually the parents have the primary right to teach their children about sexuality education. And i don't believe that it promotes positive sex education. If this bill is passed then many students will have access to these condoms and they to their partners will say let's do this.... let's do that. And for further clarification condoms aren't really working 100 %.Condoms leak, rip, slip, fall off, and can be defective. And my opponent mentioned about medical services. What is the use of the medical care provided by the RH Bill when there are existing laws people(esp. women) like Magna Carta for Women, Constitutional laws providing Health care for people and also Philhealth. And sex ed is taught in the subject MAPEH or music, arts P.E. and health.

2Protects/Saves the health of the people (esp. women)

My opponent mentions about women victimized more and killed when being pregnant. Well, 75% of the cause of that is shortage or loss of prenatal care, maternal care. We need doctors, nurses, midwives these i accept without hesitation. But i am not in favor of these contraceptives. Why should we spend billions for these contraceptives that cause cancer, breast cancer. I am wondering why these RH people including most likely says that it prevents ovarian cancer, prevents HIV/AIDS. Huh? What. You will still be dead. What is the need for prevention of this ovarian cancer and HIV/AIDS when you have breast cancer?

3Protects/Saves babies

when women are saved from pregnancy? PLS. read explanation 1 and 2.

4By popular votes of the majority of the Filipino people.

What about those who disagree. But i just want my opponent to know that the decision of the people will change, and a true nationwide survey is not based on 1,200 adults but to every Filipino. If you want to you can survey to 97 million Filipinos.

5 Freedom of Choice: A fundamental right.

I dont know about my opponent but even though without the RH bill there are government and non-government programs that promote family panning. If you would come here in the philippines, programs which promote family planning are visible.


Some arguments against the RH Bill my opponent thinked he refuted.

"Contraceptives (particularly condoms) are bad."

Well they are bad. they cause cancer particularly breast cancer.

"Sex Education will corrupt the minds of our children."

just as i said before it does not have a positive effect on students. See my explanation on your point 2 above.

"Once this bill is passed, people will engage in premarital sex."

what do you think, of course it would. But i think you're in favor of this "premarital sex". And premarital sex is immorality, therefore premarital sex destroys the morality of the society.

"The RH Bill is wrong because it is immoral, it is against God."

To clarify the argument this is a matter of if it is against God or not. I think the answer is obvious enough to comprehend. As I have said earlier if this bill is passed, people will engage in premarital sex. And both of us will agree even though many people today are doing that it is still wrong and immoral. And I believe God doesn't support immorality in fact he is against it. Therefore “The RH Bill is wrong because it is immoral, it is against God."


Questions for my opponent

1. If the Reproductive Health Bill is for health, why promote oral contraceptive pills when it is known for causing breast and cervical cancer?

2. Why is there no provision in the Reproductive Health Bill to educate women in the adverse effects of using artificial contraception if the RH Bill promotes women's health?

3. According to the latest news the budget intended for R.H Bill is 731 million, instead of spending part of this amount for artificial contraception, why not spend it to feed the street children and provide them with decent home and education?

4. In Sec.10 of the said Bill it classified contraception as essential medicine, by the word itself "medicine" it connotes something we drink or inject, then why is it I.U.D which is not a medicine but a device is included under the ambiguous term essential medicine?

5. Evidently in countries that vigorously promotes condom (Thailand, India and Africa) the cases of A.I.D.S did not decrease rather it doubled, then why promote condom even if it is not effective?

i await for my opponent's response


Debate Round No. 2
jm_notguilty

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Rebuttals:

"Under the cited constitutional guarantee.."

That amendment states that the gov't supports the right of the parents to teach for themselves, they do not strictly enforce them on doing it. Parents are pretty much involved in this matter, as you said, sex education is mandatory, if the parents don't want their children to participate, it's their right to reject it.

Also, you're missing the point, one of the points of the bill regarding Sex Education is about using safe contraception. Some primary purposes of this kind of education is that the school will accurately teach the students about being responsible on these kinds of things, not just give some sexual explicit topics and hand out condoms just like that.

"And for further clarification condoms aren't really working.."

Condoms are like other things, they break. Among those effects, it promotes safe sex, it protects people from STDs and other diseases. Using them is considered to be the best birth control method. Condoms being broken are not the primary cause of its failure; in fact, many studies say that the breakage rate for condoms is 2% at most. The main problem is that people don’t know how to use them. If people use them correctly by being taught in sex education and family planning (rather than natural family planning), then we will know that condoms are about 98% preventive against unwanted pregnancies, and with consistent use, the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year. More references/facts on [1].

"And sex ed is taught in the subject MAPEH or music, arts P.E. and health."

My opponent must not be in the Philippines today, since accurate and sufficient sexual education has not been taught since 1969 in the Philippines. It has been nonexistent and vacant prior to that same year. Although, there are some topics being taught, it is, however, that teachers are only instructed to only teach pregnancy and child care, which is very limited, insufficient and no help at all. [2][3]

“.. But i am not in favor of these contraceptives. Why should we spend billions for these contraceptives that cause cancer, breast cancer.."

I’d like my opponent to give a source to this, since it is baseless and I will treat it as an assertion. But why does it cause cancer? I’ve never heard of contraceptives being a cause to cancer. But what kind of contraceptives are you talking about?

There is a study in the UK, that oral contraceptives, taking birth control pills let women live longer. They assessed data since 1968, which contains mortality data on 46000 women who were followed for 39 years. 1,747 deaths occurred in patients who never used oral contraceptives, and 2,864 occurred among those who had.

But, the researchers noted that they were able to include three times as many deaths in their assessment as previous studies. The women studied used birth control pills for an average of 44 months. The researchers stated that those who did use the pills had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause; lower rates of death from all cancers, lower rates of death from circulatory disease, ischemic heart disease, and other disease among women who had used birth control pills. [4]

There are no risks on using oral contraceptives.

"What about those who disagree.."

Sure, let's survey the 100 million Filipinos living today, let's survey the babies, grade-schoolers, minors, and see what will happen.

These 1200 adults who participated are statistics that are accurate. Decisions change, but more and more people support this bill, as far as I know from other surveys [5][6][7], the majority supports the bill.

Anyway, you are saying that even though that the majority agrees, we have to side with the people who disagree? Again, the government doesn't force people to use these contraceptives and give them sexual education and other health services, if they oppose it or dislike it, then let them stay away from it. It's that simple.

“I dont know about my opponent but...”

Yes, there are some programs, but it’s very very limited. I ask my opponent to give a source for this.

"..premarital sex destroys the morality of the society,.."

This is a free country, a democratic country, a secular country. This debate is not about morality or your religious views. Premarital sex is neutral. People, particularly teens, are already doing it even though the bill is not yet passed.

There was a recent survey where a Doctor Raymundo did a research on premarital sex on Filipino teens, particularly adolescents in high school. A large number of students engage in premarital sex, and she also found out that a number of teens had sex diseases and RH problems. She noted that smoking/drug use/alcohol are correlated to sex behaviors which risks the RH of teens, it also increases the rate of teenage pregnancy. She also recommended that the government provide free services on reproductive on this issue. [7]

People will either be prone to engage in premarital sex or not since proper education will be taught to them. They will teach them to be responsible and do an ethical duty on family planning and sexual intercourse.

"To clarify the argument this is a matter of if it is against God or not..."

[See argument rebuttal on premarital sex above]

I will say it again, Religion, God and morality has nothing to do with the whole debate. But for this particular premise, this bill helps the people. Would God want people to still engage in premarital sex without proper education and health care services provided?

"Questions for my opponent..."

You're questions are appreciated but they need a source, since you have no sources to back up your questions, I will ignore them until you give reasonable reference as to what you’re stating.

Additional Arguments:

My opponent didn't give any sources to his other assertions but nevertheless, I still refuted them. Religion has nothing to do with this debate, nor does the morality of it. It's about the ethical duty of the government to provide the best for the Filipino people.

One of my opponent’s claims is that contraceptives produce cancer, but it does not, using condoms prevent genital warts or HPV infections that cause cervical cancers. Self breast exams and Pap smears can detect early signs of cancers which can be cured if treated early. Sex education and health care services will teach the nation all these facts.

Contraceptives do not heighten cancer risks; combined pills actually reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers. [2][4] Family planning is the best method to use than the Catholic church’s plan on natural family planning.

This bill saves money for more social spending. Contraceptives are beneficial, it ensures family planning to all who needs it would increase spending from almost P2 Billion to P4 Billion, but the medical costs for unintended/unwanted pregnancies would fall and decrease. If women will have unintended pregnancies and only used only modern natural family planning methods, then the total spending would increase from P9 Billion to P10 billion. Please refer to [8] for more info.

Last, my opponent still needs to reasonably argue as to why this bill should not pass into law.

Nothing further for now.

Sources Used:

[1] http://www.condomman.com...
[2] http://www2.hu-berlin.de...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://abcnews.go.com...
[5] http://www.pinoyexchange.com...
[6] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net...
[7] http://www.facebook.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.likhaan.org...
DAN123

Con

First of all I want to thank my opponent for his response.

My rebuttals:

"under the cited constitutional guarantee..."

In his rebuttal here my opponent here misses the point of what the constitution says. And his own rebuttal destroys his own argument. He says "That amendment states that the gov't supports the right of the parents to teach for themselves, they do not strictly enforce them on doing it.", his statement doesn't even refute my proposition that I am defending instead he wrestles the words in the given Article and tries to make it his own proof text. Again for the sake of clarification I will repeat, the sex education in which this bill imposes to be a curriculum is under condemnation of Article II, Section 12. The point of this article is: parents should be the one who is teaching sex ed NOT the government, the government is only the supporting role. And if this bill is passed it would completely contradict Article II, Section 12 of the Philippine constitution. And to avoid a supposed contradiction with his statement he tries to justify his argument saying "...as you said, sex education is mandatory, if the parents don't want their children to participate, it's their right to reject it.” Do you not think mandatory means mandatory! He says that this "sex ed" is mandatory, but then why is there rejecting in there. I think simple logic will solve that.

I have only one question for my opponent. Do this “Sex Education” teach students about safe sex?

"And for further clarification condoms aren't really working.."

And for further clarification condoms are dangerous. All of the materials used to make condoms cause allergic reactions in all men and women. Some people experience only roughening, deadening and loss of sensation, of the skin of the reproductive organs, lasting only a few hours., and since condoms aren't the core argument in this debate I will leave the further investigation to my argument [1]

"And sex ed is taught in the subject MAPEH or music, arts P.E. and health."

I just want to raise the question to my opponent: why not teach Sex education in the subject HEALTH.

“.. But i am not in favor of these contraceptives. Why should we spend billions for these contraceptives that cause cancer, breast cancer...”

Oh yes, i am not in favor of these contraceptives. But why wouldn't my opponent answer my argument about breast cancer. Is he afraid? Over the last 15 years, various studies examining the use of OCs as a risk factor for
breast cancer. In June 1995 investigators at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reported an increased risk of developing breast cancer among women under age 35 who had used birth control pills for at least 6 months, compared with those who had never used them. They also saw a slightly lower, but still elevated risk among women ages 35 to 44. In addition, their research showed a higher risk among long-term OC users, especially those who had started to take the pill before age 18.

A later comprehensive analytical report, which included the 1995 study, found that although there was a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer in women who were current or recent users of birth control pills, the risk of developing breast cancer returned to a normal level 10 years or more after discontinuation of OCs. These study results are considered to be consistent with those of the 1995 study.

The comprehensive report analyzed the results of 54 studies conducted in 25 countries that involved 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer.

The reduction in risk after 10 years or more of being off OCs was consistent regardless of family history of breast cancer, reproductive history, geographic area of residence, ethnic background, differences in study designs, dose and type of hormone, and duration of use. This risk reduction also generally held true for age at first use; however, for reasons that are not yet understood, there was a continued elevated risk among women who had started to use OCs before age 20. [2]

"...I am wondering why these RH people including most likely [my opponent] says that it prevents ovarian cancer, prevents HIV/AIDS. Huh? What. You will still be dead. What is the need for prevention of this ovarian cancer and HIV/AIDS when you have breast cancer?"

"What about those who disagree.."

Many people disagree with the RH Bill especially important ones who works in the senate, in the executive office oh and the ones who makes and proposes the budget of the Philippines. You think it's that simple that the tax paid by the Filipino people be spent in this bill that causes breast cancer. You think it's that simple to spend millions in such a controversial bill!

“I don’t know about my opponent but...”

Glad to know that you know that there are programs. Oh and everything is not always found in the internet. Programs that promote health (women's health) are visible here in the Philippines. And laws like Magna Carta for Women provide health programs.

"..Premarital sex destroys the morality of the society,.."

true, this is not a debate about morality or your religious views. But why do you make further statements about it. If you want to, we could debate about that. It is true that even though the bill is not yet passed many people are doing it. I don't know if you're a pro-"premarital sex" guy but I believe it doesn't have positive effects. It only causes problems like unwanted pregnancy, abortion and divorce etc.

"To clarify the argument this is a matter of if it is against God or not..."

[See argument rebuttal on premarital sex above]

I don’t believe that God wants people to engage in premarital sex even though there is proper education and health care

Sources for my questions:[3][4]

***********************************************************************************************

Overall sources:

[1] http://www.scribd.com...

[2] http://womenshealth.about.com...

[3] http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com...


Debate Round No. 3
jm_notguilty

Pro

Well, this was a helluva debate, now, I proceed to my...

Final Rebuttals:

Constitutional Issue

About that cited article in the constitution, CON must be confused, so I will define my point more accurately and refute yours.

1986 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 12: "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
" [1]


This section is just a state policy, I am not wrestling and playing with semantics here, the one who's on the wrong side here is you, with all due respect.

You say parents should teach sexual education, not the government, why? Does the government not consist of people, who are also parents? The teachers can be parents, are you saying you need to be a parent before you teach sex education?

But let's get something straight, we are talking about the government teaching for the students, which is the schools.

Saying sex education being taught by the government (via government-funded public schools and other educational insutions) is unconstitional and a violation of it is ludicrous and baseless. As I said again, this is only a policy on which the government supports and aids the parents on raising their children in a good manner. If the readers look carefully at the said section, the words, "sex education should only be taught by parents", etc. My opponent misused and misinterpreted "rearing the youthfor civic efficiency and the development of moral character" because he looks at the negative on sexual education and he is opposed to it because he is opposed to premarital sex.

If you say parents should only teach their children, who teaches the parents on sexual education? Parents were once children too, and they had to learn it somehow. If sexual education would mean that children are properly, accurately being taught positive and precise sex education, safe sex, family planning, etc, then it does not contradict that policy. Why deprive the government on its duties to educate? Do you have something against the government?

‎What are the outcomes if the parents teach their children about sex education when they have no knowledge on them? Some children are more likely to get their sex education from pornography, as they were not confident enough to talk with their parents. Do you prefer them getting sex tips from porn or let them get their knowledge from professionals on accurate teaching.

If the Parents are not able to fulfill that obligation, the government is required to intervene and must do something about it.

Sexual Education Issue

CON has looked at the negative on sexual education, I suggest you looking at the positive side. Now, to answer CON's question:
"Do this “Sex Education” teach students about safe sex?"


Is this question rhetorical? Because I've already said this numerous times in the past rounds, especially in my opening argument. I suggest CON read my arguments properly. To answer your question as to"why not teach Sex education in the subject HEALTH."...

I've stated this in R2, read the source I've mentioned. It's also due to the fact that the Catholic authorities are opposed to it, this question also contradicts your statement that sex education should only be taught by parents.

And because no policy has been made yet, and since the RH Bill is still up for debate and has been waiting to be passed for over a decade.

Contraception/Condom Issue

As I stated in the previous round, contraceptives do not cause cancer.

But the correlation between them really depends on the person. There are few Oral contraceptives that may have risks but it depends o the person. People can be allergic to condoms or not, really depends. Let's just note that all methods aren't suitable for all. That's why we have lots of different methods to choose from in the first place.

If these things cause cancer, then Hotdogs, Processed Meats, Chips ,Crackers, Cookies, Biscuits, French Fries, etc. can also cause potential cancer [2]. Does that mean these foods should be probited? This is such a shallow argument.

Condoms aren't that dangerous, CON is exagerrating, condoms has its benefits as I stated in the previous rounds. The World Health Organization considers these contraceptives, esp. the condom as one of the core of essential medicine.

That's why we have sex education once the bill is passed, to make us aware of the risks and use them right and be more responsible or atleast have some discipline when engaging sex.


Majority vs Minority Issue

Laws should suit the majority, not the minority, this issue is just a minor core of the argument, that's why we have debates, eventually, when we look at reality, this bill will pass.

Also, I see no evidence to suggest that those agencies you speak of oppose the bill.

I didn't mention anything 'simple', but the record, lots of bills are passed through Congress and Senate, I do not see this as a difference to the others.

Do you really want the Filipino people to pay taxes on foods that cause cancer? Because I don't, I love hotdogs.

Other:


"Glad to know that you know that there are programs. Oh and everything is not always found in the internet. Programs that promote health (women's health) are visible here in the Philippines. And laws like Magna Carta for Women provide health programs."

I'd like to remind my opponent that he is participating in an online debate, in the internet, and he sources are needed to support claims. If you can't find a source, then people can consider them baseless.

"..Premarital sex destroys the morality of the society,.."
"To clarify the argument this is a matter of if it is against God or not..."


I didn't make this an issue, CON, as I said in round 2 that I will refute arguments against RH Bill, and this is one of those arguments. Premarital sex is NEUTRAL to all, but it is morally wrong (religiously speaking). You're too emotional since you side with the morals. We can debate this anytime if you want. But, seriously, hat's why sexual education will be taught once this bill is passed. You assume that sex education will cause premarital sex, it does NOT. Premarital sex happens because no proper sex education is taught to the children engaging in them.

As I stated from the very beginning, if this bill is against God or not? Speaking for the secular society of the Filipino people, it does not matter whether or not it's against God, but religiously speaking? That's another topic I'd like to debate some other time.

"Sources for my questions:[3][4]"

These questions in that website needs a source, don't just ask a question with a source that asks the same question with no source. Again, I will consider them baseless.

Conclusion Closing:

*sigh* Too much SexEd mentioned in the debate, gonna wrap this up with a super short closing since I'm almost out of characters.


Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent makes a shallow argument on the risks of cancer, which is false. He makes another shallow argument on risks of premarital sex when sex ed is placed. My opponent looks at the moral side, which is not the case here, my opponent is to conservative and a bit ignorant since he refuse to look at the positive side of the bill.

Thus, I thank him for the last time a huge good luck on his final rebuttal.

I thank the voters on reading this arguments and urge them to vote Pro, because this bill will benefit the society of the people of the Philippines and please consider one of my arguments in the past rounds.

Sources Used:

[1] http://www.chanrobles.com...

[2] http://www.naturalnews.com...
[3] http://www.likhaan.org...




DAN123

Con

DAN123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by jm_notguilty 2 years ago
jm_notguilty
@Chrys:

Thanks for that RFD, I know this wasn't my best work, I was a noob when I debated this. But I don't think that this debate is a monstrosity or is awful, I thought it was kinda good, better than your average newbie debates IMO.

Anyhoo, 3 Euros well spent.
Posted by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
RFD: This is a shoddy debate. Scratch that; this is an unprintably awful debate. Neither side made clear cases, compelling arguments, or even decent defences; Pro's case was mildly better than Con's, primarily because Con was only coherent when he c/p'd arguments from Wikipedia.

Pro can spell well enough to tell us that a country that is 90% catholic is secular and that teachers can be parents, too, among other ridiculous and irrelevant assertions; the fact that Con is an incompetent debater who didn't call him out on these gives Pro the win. Pro raised a couple of good points about health, but failed to argue them well; Con raised a solid argument from the Phillipine Constitution, but dropped it in his forfeit; and for all that, never stated it clearly. Con dropped or strawmanned more of Pro's arguments than vice versa; arguments to Pro.

Conduct is tied. Some would give to Pro because Con forfeited his last round; I think Con did us all a favor by keeping this monstrosity from cluttering up the front page.
Posted by DAN123 2 years ago
DAN123
if you can't understand some wrong spelling, grammar and other typographical errors just let me know. post it in the comment
Posted by DAN123 2 years ago
DAN123
oh sorry for the typographical errors. I am in a hurry.
Posted by DAN123 2 years ago
DAN123
Oh sorry it's :

"I am wondering why these RH people including my opponent most likely says that it prevents ovarian cancer, prevents HIV/AIDS."
Posted by Zuko 2 years ago
Zuko
Interesting debate, I am PRO RH bill so wont be voting on this particular debate. Good luck to both of you
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
jm_notguiltyDAN123Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: See comment.
Vote Placed by randolph7 2 years ago
randolph7
jm_notguiltyDAN123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jm_notguiltyDAN123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF