Sex Ed.

I am against sex ed. in schools cause I see no use for it...if someone wants to learn more on sex ed. let that be some class outside of school....mostly everyone in school is under 18 and there to learn about the typical subjects and not about sex.......if you teach them about sex they will take it as teachers telling them there old enough for it....just like drivers ed. When kids took drivers ed they knew that they was old enough to drive. Same thing with sex ed. It seems to be fine with calling Anyone under 18 a minor yet we want to ram sex down there through while there still in school! Jr High students are not adults!...High school student are not adults!...its one way or the other you eather lower the adult age or take sex ed. out........and by the way.....putting condom machines in the schools is basically telling the student (go ahead..have sex) whats the point?? are they going to put more sex items in school in the future?...Oh no there not trying to encourage anything..its just there in case its needed....(ya right)......and the parents who are for this sex ed. i think is brainwashed. and ya wander why kids are in a rush to have sex?...they think there adults....and the kids that are still virgins are being seeing as immature by other students AND adults. Keep sex ed. out of the schools. If its illigal then of course its wrong and students under 18 aint suppose to have sex so why biult a class about it?...to learn?...learn what?.......Society wants parents to think that if they can teach there kids sex ed. then that will help prevent them from having sex....thats a bunch of crap. Its funny how hypocrite society can be.....parents wants there kids to not have sex at a young age BUT they think there "helping" them by putting them in sex ed And are FOR sex ed...lol.

I would first like to thank my opponent for presenting this debate. I will provide some arguments of my own which favor comprehensive sexual education in schools, and then attempt to rebut my opponent's round 1 posting. I would also like to ask my opponent to address arguments in separate paragraphs, and if possible in a numbered fashion (as below), to help the debate go more smoothly. Good luck!

1. Puberty occurs during middle school and high school years, and guidance is required. Common knowledge about human biology informs us that children begin to experience their first sexual urges around age 12, or upon entering middle school. Unchecked hormones, as well as the fact that it has become socially acceptable to begin dating in middle school, make it necessary to inform children of the myriad dangers of sexual activity. Looking back into human history, we are actually breeding later and later, and much of that is both sex education being in place in schools and a morality shift, which is transmitted by both parents and school curriculum. Females are ready to bear children after their first menstruation, which generally occurs anywhere from 6th to 8th grade, and males are able to inseminate even early than that, at times. We've slowly progressed from marriage at 12 to marriage at 25, but moral standards does not change human biology. Students will continue to go through puberty and will continue to grapple with sexual urges whether we choose to ignore the issue or not.

Hence, schools have a responsibility to teach sexual education. A school's main functions are socialization and information. Schools teach children not only essential subjects, but also how to be viable members of adult communities. Now, even if you don't agree that sex education is an essential subject (which I do), you must agree that schools serve this dual capacity. A major part of viable functionality in the adult world is sex and procreation. Therefore, it would seem to be in the natural way of it for a school to educate students about realities that they will face. Again, covering up something that will undeniably affect a student's life hardly seems beneficial to their thriving. I challenge my opponent to prove otherwise.

2. Education is an empirically successful way to improve health. I will use two very illustrative examples to prove how little abstinence-only education works to improve the quality of life around the world.

My first example stems from right here in the United States. Some of you may have heard of the scandal of Rockdale County, Georgia, in which over 200 students were discovered to be engaged in a community sex ring, ages 13 to 18. How were they discovered? Due to an outbreak of syphilis amongst the ring. Rockdale County schools refused to include sex education in their curriculum, and parents turned a blissfully blind eye to their childrens' behaviors, or assumed that their moralizing was successfully keeping their children away from sex. Unfortunately, biology beat out Rockdale, and the county chose to revamp their sex ed. program. Upon hearing about this, thousands of school districts did the same. Under-education leads to risky and dangerous behavior. We see this in drug abuse, smoking, and alcohol, as well. Does my opponent oppose the D.A.R.E program, as well?

My second example is far more illustrative and of world-wide concern. Currently, countries in Africa are being consumed by the AIDs virus. Some countries, like Botswana, can claim that � of their adult population is infected with the virus. Over half of those victims are women, most likely involved in prostitution, which is the number 1 cause of the spread of AIDs in sub-Saharan Africa. This continent is also the most under-educated when it comes to sexual safety. Prostitutes and their customers are not encouraged to wear condoms, nor do they all know the dangers of the disease due to a completely inadequate educational system. The link between education and safety is clear: teach children to fear and respect the act of sex, and they will remain far safer than allowing them to live in ignorance. If children in Africa knew about the AIDs virus, then as they grow older, they probably would choose not to engage in risky sexual behaviors.

In response to my opponent:

"I am against sex ed. in schools cause I see no use for it...if someone wants to learn more on sex ed. let that be some class outside of school....mostly everyone in school is under 18 and there to learn about the typical subjects and not about sex"

The use for sexual education is outlined in both of my arguments. In a first world nation like the US, sex education is a necessity to curb incredibly strong hormonal responses and to prevent the spread of disease. I believe that 1 in 4 Americans have at least one STI at this point in time. Teaching students about those STI's will statistically limit their transmission, as well as teaching them about safe ways to engage in sex (such as barrier contraceptives). And, while sex ed. may not be "typical," I argue that it is essential.

".......if you teach them about sex they will take it as teachers telling them there old enough for it....just like drivers ed. When kids took drivers ed they knew that they was old enough to drive. Same thing with sex ed. It seems to be fine with calling Anyone under 18 a minor yet we want to ram sex down there through while there still in school! Jr High students are not adults!...High school student are not adults!...its one way or the other you eather lower the adult age or take sex ed. out........"

1. Age is an arbitrary standard by which to measure adulthood. Age also does not correlate well with biological development at all. While we call an adult 18 years old, a person's hormones start telling them to have sex at about age 12. The 6 years in between must be accounted for somehow. Ignoring those 6 years will only lead to more Rockdale County incidents.

2. Sexual education doesn't encourage kids to have sex. In fact, it does exactly the opposite, by revealing the dangers of sexual activity to students when it matters the most: puberty. They are less likely to be able to interpret or control sexual urges at that stage, since it is a period of immense biological adjustment. I also fail to see the connection between driver's ed. and sex ed. Driving is not encouraged by a biological hormone shift. We don't have the hormonal urge to drive…

"and by the way.....putting condom machines in the schools is basically telling the student (go ahead..have sex) whats the point?? are they going to put more sex items in school in the future?...Oh no there not trying to encourage anything..its just there in case its needed....(ya right)......"

Even though I agree with the placement of condom machines in high schools, I think that it is out of the scope of this debate. The placement of a condom machine is separate from a sexual education curriculum, which is what your topic clearly limits the debate to.

"and the parents who are for this sex ed. i think is brainwashed. and ya wander why kids are in a rush to have sex?...they think there adults....and the kids that are still virgins are being seeing as immature by other students AND adults."

While I must agree that the pressure to have sex prior to leaving for college is high, that is only more reason for sexual education to exist. Sex education validates those who choose to wait, and it supports their decision. Have you actually designed or been taught a comprehensive sexual education curriculum? As a certified, highly qualified teacher with a Bachelor's degree in Education, I can honestly and confidently say that, unless the curriculum was designed by someone highly underqualified, it will not contain any sort of sexual encouragement. In fact, it supports the idea that teenagers are too young to have sex.

As my opponent cannot link sex ed. to any of his harms, vote Pro.

I do agree that the age of maturity has gotten later and later and that a 14 year old years ago was much more maturer then a 14 year old now. But if a teen wants to have sex there going to have sex and if they have sexually urges then head knowlege about sex wont take away those urges...they will just be a "informed" teen that is sleeping around....peaple seem to overrate sex ed. No matter how right or wrong something is....is the law says No then we have always had to go by it.....so if a teen is "horney" (exuse my language) then thats the problem of the teen and Not the school cause the law says that the teen is too young for sex and should not be having urges....and anyone can get urges when they got there mind in the gutter....they have urges cause they CHOOSE to have them..lets put the blame where it needs to be..the teens...now a person may say that they cant help how they feel (I disagree).....but if its oh so normal for a person under 18 to want to have sex then they should ower the age...if they dont want to do that cause they feel they that would be too young then I guess the teens will have to keep there pants on and learn that they have control over there own bodys and not to let there lust have control over them....peaple act like these teens nowaday are innocent victoms...there not..there just have attitudes like there adults cause of various things that society teaches them. I aint going to "outline" this...ill just put this the only way i know how............it seems pretty clear and simple to me......the law says a person shouldnt be doing something...then the person shouldnt be learning about it........even if the law says under 25 is a miner then thats what we would have to go by.....its funny that with all of the thing that peaple abide by when it comes to the law they want to compromise with it if it has to deal with sex ed.?

Since my opponent has now refused to outline arguments in a clear fashion, I have grouped the issues discussed in his round 2 posting as best as I can. Since he abandoned case arguments of mine, I have extended where I see fit. Obviously, most of my benefits (Africa & Rockdale County contained these benefits) need to be extended, as does much of my rebuttals of this case. I urge readers to consider the cost-benefit analysis of ignoring sex vs. educating responsibly about the reality of sex within the round.

1. On the issue of urges: I'm not sure that my opponent properly understands puberty or how it works. Puberty is, by far, the most difficult emotional and biological stage for a person to experience (with the possible exception of facing one's own death). You can't choose to release hormones like testosterone or estrogen into your body. Biologically speaking, it's akin to breathing. At that stage in life, we don't "choose" to become sexually attracted to other people. So, to lay blame on teenagers for puberty is ignorant. Granted, they are at a point when decision-making is easier as the children grow older, but the point is that teens are far more likely to want to have sex and to have a warped decision-making process due to those biological factors. Sex education arms them with the proper tools to resist that urge. If teens don't know the dangers of sex, it becomes far easier to justify having sex.

2. On the maturity issue: I think my opponent fundamentally misunderstands my purpose in discussing maturity, and I would ask the readers to extend all of my arguments regarding the arbitrariness of attempting to legislate anything based on age, especially the administration of sexual education. To assume that acceptability translates into biological readiness is dangerous and unwarranted. Some members of society can object to people under the age of 18 having sex all that they want. Their railing will not change human nature, nor will it change the stages of puberty.

3. On legality: I'm really not sure what my opponent was talking about when he references the legality of having sex as a minor, but we get into this "changing the age of consent" business again. If my opponent would like to clarify this in round 3, I will more than happily rebut it. For now, I really don't understand how changing the age of consent affects the merits of sex education. The age of consent for most states in the US is actually under the age of 18 (as low as 14 in some states), and generally sex between 2 minors will not be prosecuted (clearly). So, there really is no reason to consider this within the debate, as I don't understand how it provides any sort of affirmative solvency.

4. On legality and sex education (education encourages sex): please extend my arguments in
regarding how sex education is designed. You will never find a teacher standing in front of a classroom telling kids how fun sex is, and encouraging them to have sex. My opponent equates learning about sex with having sex, which he does not warrant in any way. As I demonstrated in my Rockdale County & Sub-Saharan Africa examples, education leads to less sex and more overall health. Ignoring the problem exacerbates it, which my opponent failed to refute. Hence, his world actually leads to more unprotected sex, more STI spread, more teen pregnancy, and more overall detriment than a world with sex education.

Not only that, but by my opponent's rationale, we shouldn't learn about the dangers of drugs or alcohol, either, since they are either conditionally or entirely illegal. Sending kids through D.A.R.E programs or anti-substance abuse programs in school will clearly lead to them using drugs, according to my opponent, so we should stop using such programs. Instead, society should bury its head in the sand, ignore real life, and hope that children just "adjust."

As my opponent still has not proved a viable link between sex education and increased unsafe sexual activity, and since my opponent cannot give you an accurate portrayal of the goals and curriculum of a sex education program, whereas I can, I urge a vote for Pro. The Pro represents an educated, safer, and more sensible world.

You stated..... "Puberty is, by far, the most difficult emotional and biological stage for a person to experience"...I disagree...teens get themselves in there own mess...I feel men and woman get more hungry for sex after there out of high school then when they was 12,14,16..ect...if they go around looking at ponography and making out with others from school and experamenting then there bodys is going to want sex more......Ive heard it said many times over and over and i believe its true....lust is like drugs or any other addiction....if you get yourself into it then its harder to go without it....the more ya have it the more ya want it..........lets not put a blanket over the real issue....are you going to justify the ones that are running wild,sleeping around,cheating,raping...ect...ect....all that is from Lust!......if parents dont wanna do there job as a parent or the law wont let them then dont give in and say that sex should be a part of a teens life therefor lets have sex ed.....I think the parent should inform the kids about sex and not the schools!

1. Despite my opponent's assertions, puberty is directly characterized as the coming of maturity of human sex organs, which is accompanied by hormones which create human sex drive. Bottom line: we even want to have sex until puberty. All of the sudden, we are presented with an entirely new human sensation. My opponent seems to think that this plays no role in the sexuality of teenagers, which is clearly not the case. Though I didn't think I'd actually have to argue about the scientific realities of puberty, I'll go ahead and cite a few sources to back myself up, and prove that my opponent has no clue what puberty is or how it affects youth. This was basic biology, health, and psychology knowledge in both high school and college…

http://www.scienceclarified.com...
http://www.puberty101.com...
http://kidshealth.org...

You can't control puberty. It isn't something you can stop. I never removed the agency of decision-making from teens. However, my opponent refuses to consider the fact that kids WILL learn about sexuality somehow at the time of puberty. Mother nature sees to that. Either they can learn the facts and harms of sex in schools, or we can "blanket the problem," as it were, but ignoring sexual education, which will inevitably lead to more unsafe, young sex. This harm has been completely ignored throughout the round. If you vote for the con, you vote for more unsafe sex.

2. Why might kids seek out pornography or seek out experimentation? This is entirely due to the new urges that they have. They wouldn't have these urges if it wasn't for puberty.

3. Despite what my opponent would have you believe, not all teenagers, not even a majority of teenagers are "sleeping around, cheating, raping," etc. This is completely hyperbolic. Kids naturally experiment with sex because their bodies tell them to, and because opportunities arise. Sex education is the only interference between safe treatment of sex and unfettered, uneducated sexual experimentation. I remind you that 1 in 4 adults in the US have an STI right now. May I also remind everyone of Rockdale and Africa, which my opponent still has yet to mention. These are clear cut cases, one locality, and one continent, that show the extreme detriment of a lack of sexual education.

4. My opponent has also not addressed the fact that sex education is not linked to increased sexual activity. He can offer no curriculums, no teachers, and no circumstances in which a teacher has seriously preached the joys of sex in front of a class of 9th graders. Sex education curriculum doesn't do that. I've helped design sex education curriculum. I have a degree in education, and am a highly qualified, certified HS educator. My opponent offers nothing but groundless assertions that sex education leads to more sex in teens, whereas I am a highly qualified expert on the subject of education.

5. I'm not saying sex should be a part of their lives. I'm saying it is a part of their lives, whether we want it to be or not. Sexual urges are out of our control. It's instinct. I cannot be clearer on this point. And though I feel that introducing parents into the debate at this point is slightly abusive, I'll address it anyway. First of all, parents are already included closely in the curriculum forming process for both health and sex education. Children can easily be opted out of sex education or pieces of it, which fits parents' ideologies very well. Second of all, parents are not always trained or capable of educating their children about sex. Besides absentee parents, you have irresponsible parents, or parents who are simply too embarrassed to do anything but tell their child not to have sex. This is a sure-fire way to cheat children of valuable information, and is the same as school-sanctioned abstinence-only education, which I addressed in round 1. School is the only way to reach as many children as possible.

For more reasons than I can list, I urge a strong vote for the Pro.