The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Schools distributing condoms to students

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 32,457 times Debate No: 19756
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




No slandering. All assumed rules of standard debate conduct apply.

Con is arguing against condom distribution in schools, and pro is arguing for condom distribution in schools.

"Schools": Secondary and middle school educational institutions in the United States
"Students": The learners who are enrolled at the aforementioned institutions
"Condoms": Barrier device used for the purpose of contraception during sexual intercourse
"Distributing": Passing out; Delivering

The first argument of both sides will be exclusively allotted for the opposition's acceptance notice, terms of debate, and definitions of words relevant to the foundation of the debate.

Thank you.



I'd like to thank IVV for the challenge and interesting resolution.

I will be assuming the affirmative position, arguing that condoms should be made readily available to students in middle schools and high schools.


I accept the definitions and terms for the most part, however, I request that "distributing" be changed to "making readily available" to avoid any semantic arguments such as mandates for students to accept condoms, etc.

If Con disagrees, I ask that he respond in the comments before posting his first round to avoid potentially unnecessary effort.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


I accept the revision of the definition of "distributing" proposed by the opposition, and would like to thank the opposition for choosing to participate in this debate.

These are the premises for the "Con" claim:

1: It must be noted that the effectiveness of condom use is very exaggerated. Improper implementation, something which school-age teenagers are more vulnerable to than the average male adult (due to intoxication or lack of experience), causes condoms to be extremely ineffective. One must remember that, with typical condom use, 18% of women become pregnant. [1] Hence, the availability of condoms often gives teenagers a false sense of security when engaging in intercourse, while encouraging such activity to take place.

2: Presenting condoms to students in a publicly funded environment will offend students of a wide range of faiths and their respective families, including those of the Catholic faith, many of those of the (Orthodox and Conservative) Judaic faith, and many of those of the Protestant faith. [2] By giving students access to condom and encouraging their use, public schools are interfering with the fundamental religious beliefs of students and their families.

3: By teaching students about both abstinence and use of contraception, school programs are sending mixed messages to students. If the school wants them to not have sex, why would it give them condoms that they could use as contraception during intercourse? Hence, the distribution of condoms contradicts a school's attempts to promote abstinence. Moreover, the distribution of condoms leads to increased sexual activity among students; an increased level of sexual activity among students may lead to situations in which they may be physically hurt or exploited, due to their lack of mental maturity and physical vulnerability.

Condom distribution in schools leads to a false sense of sexual security among students who lack experience with condom use, imposes ideas that contradict the religious beliefs of many students and their families, and sends a contradictory message to students that ultimately encourages them to engage in more sexual activity. Therefore, "Con" is the far superior position.

Thank you, and I look forward to the opposition's refutations.




I’d like to thank Con for the brisk response and apologize for the delay in my own.


1: Con attempts to degrade the value of using a condom by hyperbolically deeming it “extremely ineffective”, while even when used improperly, condoms have an 82% chance of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Notice how the fact that when utilized properly, the chances of preventing an unwanted pregnancy spikes to a startling 98%. [1]

Con provides no studies or sources indicating any sort of correlation between age and the improper implementation of condoms, thereby rendering this point speculative and consequently, moot.

Con states that the availability of condoms lulls teenagers into a false sense of security regarding intercourse due to the apparent exaggeration of condom effectiveness. In order for this point to hold any weight, Con must provide evidence that a majority of schools misrepresent said effectiveness; otherwise this is again, speculative. Furthermore, the misrepresentation (if it existed) does nothing to damage the fact that making condoms readily available can in no way increase the risks of sex as it in fact, accomplishes the exact opposite.

A recent study conducted in Philadelphia high schools found that school-based condom programs do not encourage sexual activity. Philadelphia high schools have made condoms available through a comprehensive school-based health resource center. Sixty-four percent of students questioned at the health centers reported engaging in sex; the same number as students in schools that lack health centers and condom access programs. In Massachusetts, the availability of condoms in schools also did not lead to increased sexual activity. A study comparing condom use before and after the program found a 43 percent increase in condom use in sexually active students. No study has conclusively shown that making contraceptives available to teens leads to increased sexual activity, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.”[2] This study clearly refutes the entirety of Con’s first contention. The study also shows a clear increase in condom usage and accordingly, a decrease in the risks of sexual intercourse (unless Con would contest the male condom’s effectiveness at reducing unwanted pregnancies and STIs).

2: Presenting condoms to students in a publicly funded environment will offend students of a wide range of faiths and their respective families, including those of the Catholic faith, many of those of the (Orthodox and Conservative) Judaic faith, and many of those of the Protestant faith. [2] By giving students access to condom and encouraging their use, public schools are interfering with the fundamental religious beliefs of students and their families.

If one is against making condoms available to students because it may offend students of certain faiths, one must also be against several other aspects of high schools such as serving pork and other meat in the cafeteria as it would offend the Islamic community.

This was the exact argument I attempted to avoid with my redefinition of “distribute”, albeit this is slightly tangent to my previously intended target. Schools with condom-access programs are in no way forcing any students to use or even accept condoms. If being exposed to the mere notion of condoms will deeply offend a student practicing the religions Con has mentioned, the world outside schools would therefore be horrendous and intolerable.

Opponents of sex education also believe that these programs violate the rights of parents to education their children about moral behavior and religious values. But the truth is that these programs do not preclude the right of a parents to teach a child anything. They simply prevent the use of the public schools to impose religious beliefs on students. Those who argue that the mandate of schools is only to teach academic subjects forget that public high schools are the best place for sex education and condom availability programs because the schools are full of teenagers and of adults who are trained and willing to counsel them.”[3] The completely passive exposure to different ideals and opinions is abundant in modern society, in fact, that is the premise of a learning environment such as a school. If parents do not want their children to use contraceptives such as male condoms, they have every right to attempt to instil said beliefs into their child. Condom-access oriented safe-sex programs do nothing to directly undermine this. In fact, as bolded in the passage above, schools are not to impose any one religion’s beliefs and teachings on the students, and succumbing to parents practicing the aforementioned religions would be indirectly doing just that. Also note that Con has presented no sources pertaining to objections by parents to the distribution of condoms.

3: Con is misrepresenting the aims of safe-sex programs in schools when he states “If the school wants them to not have sex, why would it give them condoms that they could use as contraception during intercourse? Hence, the distribution of condoms contradicts a school's attempts to promote abstinence.” What Con neglects to realize (or rather communicate), is that schools and their faculty are generally not in 100% agreement with themselves regarding teenagers engaging in sex. Schools simply promote abstinence for teens as the first choice of action and, by having the logicality to realize only a minority will choose this option, also provide the option of safe-sex via open male condom availability.

Con again states that making condoms readily available will lead to increased sexual activity (which I have already proven is false[2]) and that said increased sexual activity, if it existed, “may lead to situations in which [students] may be physically hurt or exploited, due to their lack of mental maturity and physical vulnerability”, which is completely unsupported and therefore irrelevant.


I have therefore refuted all of Con’s contentions and coincidentally, their converses coincide with and have become my arguments. As the distribution (as re-defined in my first round) of condoms is not detrimental to students in terms of safety, the promotion of sexual activity, or the religious beliefs, there stands no reason to deny schools the opportunity to safeguard their students from the risks of unprotected sex.

Thank you. I await Con’s response.





Debate Round No. 2


1. When the consequences are as drastic as unintended pregnancy and STD transmission, I would certainly call 82% efficiency of improper condom use extremely ineffective, especially when seven in ten US adolescents have sex before age 19 [1] and with high frequency.

Correlation between age/experience and improper use: " demonstrate that effectiveness increases with experience, leaving those adolescents with the least experience at greatest risk for improper use." [2] Inexperienced adolescents, hence, are more susceptible to improper use, which puts them at greater risk for the aforementioned serious ramifications.

Schools programs do, in fact, misrepresent and exaggerate condom effectiveness. Some of the myths leaked through these programs are debunked in this source. [3] As a result of these hyperbolic facts, many adolescents develop a false sense of security in regards to their use of condoms during sex, despite the fact that they are more susceptible to misuse due to a lack of experience, as evidenced before.

A study at St. Francisco's Balboa HS resulted in the publishing of the following excerpt: "The number of students having sex doubled [after the instatement of the condom distribution program]… The schools overall pregnancy rate increased by one fourth. With an increase in pregnancies, it can be assumed that there was a similar increase in student exposure to sexually transmitted diseases." [4] Some credible studies certainly support the claim that sexual activity increases because of condom distribution programs at schools. This seems to match with what one would logically expect; condom use is advertised and, through that, students receive the message that sexual activity is expected of them... or at least not unexpected of them.

2. "Schools with condom-access programs are in no way forcing any students to use or even accept condoms."
Schools are certainly encouraging condom use to students through their sex education programs. The pork comparison is not appropriate in this situation. Schools are certainly not just displaying condoms on trays like pulled pork sandwiches in the lunch line; they are advocating condom use and are thereby implying that sexual activity is not unexpected of the adolescents... and that it is okay as long condoms are implemened.

Condom distribution at schools does, in fact, interfere with parents' rights. Based on the ruling of the court case Alfonso v. Fernandez, voluntary condom distribution programs in schools interfere with the rights of parents to rear their children as they saw fit. [5] Parents have a fundamental right to rear their own children, and these programs took away from it, so parents should be given the right to opt their children out of it.

3. "[S]chools and faculty are generally not in 100% agreement with themselves..."

The opposition makes an unclear argument. The decision to distribute condoms or to promote abstinence is almost always determined solely by faculty, whether it be superintendents, members of the school district committee, or other working members of the school community. "Schools," by definition, are places of learning and hence cannot "agree" with policies... or anything for that matter. The opposition is politely asked to clarify.

The distribution of condoms does, indeed, increase sexual activity, as the provided source claims. [4]

In Conclusion:

The opponent's refutations have been countered. Through these counters, CON proves to be the superior stance on the issue, proving that condom distribution in schools is detrimental and must therefore cease, a claim that PRO has thus far failed to effectively falsify.

Thank you, and I greatly look forward to PRO's retort.


[4] International Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1991, 6-16.



1. One of Con’s major pillars of argument is that improper condom use is extremely ineffective and therefore condom use should wholly be removed. Unfortunately, Con fails to realize the implications.

Do you know what is even more ineffective in preventing unplanned pregnancies and STI transmission than improper condom usage?

No condom usage at all.

Con’s entire contention hinges on emphasizing the percentage of inefficiency when condoms are used improperly, while utterly failing to mention the case when condoms were not used at all. “A sexually active teen who does not use a contraceptive has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.”[1] The 72% efficiency difference between using condoms and not using them is monolithic.

Furthermore, data from several studies demonstrated that sexual activity has increased in 15-19 year old adolescent females from 37% in the 1970s to a high of 53% in 1999.[2] This shows a clear increasing trend in sexual activity in adolescents in a time period where programs involving condom distribution were virtually non-existent. As sexual activity increases among youth, the 72% difference in efficient prevention becomes exponentially more significant than it already is.

It is undeniable that the condom availability programs significantly increase the usage of condoms during intercourse[2], however, Con claims the very same programs also increase sexual activity. From the very same source Con obtains his facts (the Alan Guttmacher Institute), I have already shown in my previous round that in studies of several high schools in Philadelphia and Massachusetts that absolutely no study has conclusively shown the making of contraceptives available to teens leads to increased sexual activity.[3] As further evidence, another study on a Los Angeles County high school involving 1,945 students showed “[t]here was no significant change over time in the percentage of males or females who had ever had vaginal intercourse or who had had vaginal intercourse during the year prior to the survey.”[4]

Con on the other hand, has a single study wherein “The number of students having sex doubled [after the instatement of the condom distribution program]… The schools overall pregnancy rate increased by one fourth”. This drastic difference in numbers and results in comparison to the numerous studies I have presented from a verifiable source common to both Pro and Con indicates an extreme likelihood of the aforementioned study being an outlier and/or having other significant factors apart from the condom availability program.

Therefore, it has been clearly shown once again that making condoms available does
not lead to a total increase in sexual activity; rather it leads only to an increase in protected sexual activity, which is the end goal of sexual education programs.

I must also bring to light the fact that this debate is focused on making condoms available to students, not on the other elements present in these programs in which the topic of condom availability is only present. As such, Con’s arguments vis-à-vis the misrepresentation of condom effectiveness and other unrelated program aspects are completely irrelevant.

However, Con will probably disagree, and thus I will respond. One must also consider the sources from which these arguments are based. Con cites for its take on the US Department of Health and Human Services HHS report on sexual education curricula. Upon further inspection and reading the HHS report itself, it is clear the website in question is not immune to bias. The site conveniently reports only portions of the program that, when taken out of context, seem to promote sexual activity. The site also fails to address the numerous programs such as “BART = Becoming a Responsible Teen” where “the findings of the curriculum effectiveness evaluations include: delayed sexual initiation, decreased number of sex partners, increased condom used for males having vaginal intercourse, increased overall condom use for all intercourse, etc.”[6:pg 27]

I urge the readers to consult the HHS report itself[6] rather than the website filtering sections of said source.

2. Con states “Schools are certainly not just displaying condoms on trays like pulled pork sandwiches in the lunch line”, while in fact, that is exactly what condom availability programs do. I have already addressed this argument in my original post when redefining “distribution”, which Con has accepted. Advocacy is recommending an opinion, not forcing it down the audience’s throat as Con seems to think these programs do. Examples include schools that made condoms available in baskets and vending machines[5], wherein there is absolutely no compelling of students, rather, the schools are simply providing an option. However, in the event that a student is interested, 98% of schools with condom availability programs make counselling available[5] (again, making available does not equate to any amount of force).

Con argues these programs infringe on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children as they see fit, however, a large majority of said programs provide an ample solution:

there are two common requirements for receiving condoms: parental consent and counselling. The first requirement is designed to reduce concerns about infringement of parental rights; the second is intended to defuse both potential objections that condom availability programs might be seen as sanctioning sexual activity”[5]

From Table 2. Percentage of schools, by program characteristics[5], 81% of 431 schools in the USA with condom availability programs require parental consent before students are allowed to obtain a condom. In addition, 95% of said schools have health centres, wherein a blanket consent is required before the student can receive any health services[4]. These facts completely nullify Con’s case of infringement on parental rights to rear their children along with his citation of the Alfonso v. Fernandez case as it is clearly shown that a large majority of schools allow parents to deny and opt their child out of the program.

3. The objective of this section was to indicate that Con commits the fallacy of false dichotomy when only considering abstaining from sexual intercourse and using a condom during sexual intercourse. There is a third option that is prevalent in many high schools: students engaging in sex without contraceptives.

I was simply stating that schools with sexual education programs do not make the same mistake of committing this fallacy and realize that students, no matter how few, will engage in sexual activity regardless of what anybody, let alone the school, does. Many programs involving condom availability programs also advocate abstinence as the only absolute method of prevention, as shown by the evaluation of several programs in the HHS Review of Comprehensive Sex Education Criteria[6]. The two methods of prevention are absolutely not mutually exclusive nor detrimental to one another; schools simply have the wisdom and experience to predict the behaviour of students and realize abstinence will never be the choice of all students and wisely present another option: safe-sex.


I have therefore once again refuted Con’s contentions against condom availability and urge a Pro vote.

The real goal and issue the resolution addresses is simply a matter of reducing unwanted pregnancies and reducing STI transmission. Abstinence is undoubtedly the most effective, and making condoms available for students simply provides another line of defence.

Thank you, and I look forward to Con’s response.









Debate Round No. 3


My opponent reasserts his claims...

He completely forgets, however, about the fact that "condom" has the word "dumb" in it, and therefore, they should not be distributed to students who are trying to get an education and become SMART. Such a practice would be very counterproductive.

Moreover, with condoms, students' baby-making abilities are blocked. And as we all know, babies make the world go round. As evidence:

Lastly, God hates contraception. If He had used contraception, Baby Jesus would never have been born. Without Jesus, there would be no Christmas (and no presents.) I'm sure the opponent would agree with me on this matter, since he is no Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Much thanks to PRO for his strong, engaging argument. Now that I have brought up these new claims, though, his argument has been completely countered. I cannot see how he could possibly retort effectively against such a strong case. Vote CON.



Con again seems to only present evidence that favours his case, however, if we look at the big picture, we see the entire word is actually con-dumb. As such, the dumb is negated and schools are in fact distributing smart to the students.

Babies do not make the world go round, rather, over one million and two hundred thousand people agree with me that Nas (with the help of Chris Brown and the Game) make the world go round, as we can see in the video to the right.

Con's case vis-a-vis God using contraception only re-affirms my position. Con concedes that if God had used a condom, Jesus would not have been born. If a condom is 100% effective in stopping God's seed, then there must absolutely no risk of unwanted pregnancy or STI transmission when used on mere mortal teenagers.


In all seriousness, I have shown that the availability of condoms is not a detriment to students as Con states due to the fact that it does not increase sexual activity among students and is 72% more effective than not using a condom at all in terms of unwanted pregnancy and STI transmission. I have also proven that a large majority (81%) of condom availability programs mandate parental consent before the student is allowed services such as acquiring condoms, meaning the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit is not infringed upon. Lastly, it was clarified that sexual education programs that include condom availability do not exclude abstinence as a solution, but merely present protected sex as an alternative to unprotected sex knowing students will never all choose abstinence.

Thus, as I have refuted Con's final three arguments he chose to present in the final round and Con conversely has dropped all three of my above contentions, I urge a Pro ballot.

Stay safe. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 6 years ago
XD at InVinoVeritas last argument. Like a boss. There should be points awarded for humor.
Posted by caveat 6 years ago
NOTE: I was unable to procure a digital or phypsical copy of Con's [4] source to verify the claims brought forth by this source in his third round, so I urge the readers to take this into account when reading arguments from both sides.
Posted by caveat 6 years ago
Sorry for the weird formatting... pasting from Word into an RTF textbox is undoubtedly sub-optimal. XD
Posted by InVinoVeritas 6 years ago
It's all right. I've been busy, too, with finals coming up and everything. Try your best to get it in.
Posted by caveat 6 years ago
Sorry, been busy the past day and a half.
I will be posting my first round sometime tomorrow morning... hopefully before the deadline!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 6 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: InVino probably had a good chance, except his idiocy regarding the last round makes him forfeit everything.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stuck to the same three arguments which Pro negated each round until round 4 when Con he finally conceded them. By that point, Con seemed to realize that he had little chance of winning and resorted to his argument that con-dumbs are the opposite of smart. Pro negated that too.