The Instigator
missbailey8
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Sex Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
missbailey8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 845 times Debate No: 91690
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

missbailey8

Pro

Thank you to harrytruman for your interest in the debate. Here are my rules.

Structure:
Round 1 - Opening Statements from Con
Round 2 - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from Con
Round 3 - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from Con
Round 4 - Defense from Pro, Con Must Waive

Rules:
1) No hate speech/ slander
2) No kritkiks
3) No plagiarism
4) No new arguments in final round
5) Please use citations
6) No forfeiture
7) No troll arguments
8) BoP is shared

Voting Rules:
1) Vote Convincing Arguments
2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present
3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand

Terms:
Sex Education - education in schools on the subject of sexual activity and sexual relationships

Should - must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, orexpediency)

Be - occur; take place.

Taught - to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in

In - (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits)

Schools - an institution where instruction is given, especially to persons under college age

harrytruman

Con

It should be taught by their parents, not the government.
Debate Round No. 1
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you. Here's my rebuttal to my opponent's argument.

First of all, my opponent only wrote one sentence and it's a bare assertion. He doesn't provide any evidence saying that kids are better taught by their parents than schools or that schools are insufficient in teachings sexual education. With no sources or logic applied to this argument, it can easily be thrown out, but I'll go even deeper into it to prove my point.

Not all children have parents, that's clear.

"It is estimated there are between 143 million and 210 million orphans worldwide (recent UNICEF report.) The UNICEF orphan numbers DON’T include abandonment (millions of children) as well as sold and/or trafficked children. The current population of the United States is just a little over 300 million…" [1]

Those children can't be taught sexual education by their parents. What about children who are abused or neglected by their parents?

"...there were nearly 27,000 reports of child abuse and neglect in Pennsylvania in 2013 and about 22,500 Pennsylvania children lived in foster care in 2014." [2]

This is in Pennsylvania alone. What about on a larger scale?

"According to NCANDS whose latest statistics are for 2005 an estimated 3.3 million referrals of child abuse or neglect were received by public social service or CPS agencies. Of these referrals, 899,000 children were confirmed to be victims of abuse or neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). That means about 12 out of every 1,000 children up to age 18 in the United States were found to be victims of maltreatment in 2005 (USDHHS, 2007)." [3]

Would these parents be qualified/willing to teach their children about sexual education? Most parents aren't qualified to teach the way a licensed teacher hired by a school can, unless, of course, they're teachers themselves.

Thirdly, let's say that every single child in the world had parents who are actually somewhat capable of teaching their child. In this fantasy land, they're actually decent parents who properly take care of their child efficiently without abuse or anything like that. But there's one thing that isn't certain: if they're putting in the time. In a school environment, you can ensure that every child is being focused on and they all get an equal amount of education and time. In a home environment, you can't exactly make sure of this.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's defense.

Citations
[1]http://www.orphanhopeintl.org...
[2]http://www.papartnerships.org...
[3]http://www.americanhumane.org...
harrytruman

Con

Actually, this is very self evident, if you went up to someone in 1958 and asked them "would you want your children to be taught about sex by the GOVERNMENT," they'd say "ob course not, why would I do that?" And you can see how much better of a generation that was.

Another point to bring up, I have to learn sex education in class- and I can tell you it is really unnecessary, first of all, I learned the same old crap in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, now 9th grade too? Give me a break. It's ridiculous, everyone knows this stuff by 15, the thingy goes in the thingy and that's it, why should we have to do it all over again?

If children don't have parents, then their guardian can tell them, or they can just go look it up.
Debate Round No. 2
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you for your defense. Here are my opening statements.

Typically, in sex education, you learn how to put on a condom, tips on safe sex, the risks of getting infected, and much more, according to the current curriculum. [1] This is definitely necessary when you look at the statistics of STDs and STIs.

"More than half of all people will have an STD/STI at some point in their lifetime....About half of all new STDs/STIs in 2000 occurred among youth ages 15 to 24."

With sexual education, we can reduce the harm and possibly deaths of young people due to sexually transmitted diseases. Thousands die every year from diseases such as AIDS and HIV.

"In the classroom setting, high quality sex education curricula that have been shown to be effective in delaying sex, reducing the frequency of sex or the number of sexual partners, increasing condom and contraceptive use, and reducing the number of STDs in youth are those that not only discuss the dangers of high-risk sexual activity, but also address multiple factors affecting sexual behavior, such as perceived risk (i.e. the person’s belief that he or she is at risk for a STD), social norms (i.e. the attitudes and behaviors around condom use within the person’s social circle), and self-efficacy (i.e. the person’s confidence in their ability to insist on using condoms with their partner)."

As proven before, condoms are made to prevent pregnancy and disease. If used correctly, they work 98% of the time. [6] Obviously, if high quality sexual education is taught, then STDs will go down, particularly in youth.

B. Teen Pregnancy

"In 2014, a total of 249,078 babies were born to women aged 15â€"19 years, for a birth rate of 24.2 per 1,000 women in this age group." Apparently, this is supposed to be the low!



Yes, while the rates have gone down, teen pregnancy is still an issue. It affects the teens, the children, and families involved.



    • "In 2010, teen pregnancy and childbirth accounted for at least $9.4 billion in costs to U.S. taxpayers for increased health care and foster care, increased incarceration rates among children of teen parents, and lost tax revenue because of lower educational attainment and income among teen mothers.
    • "Pregnancy and birth are significant contributors to high school dropout rates among girls. Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school.
    • "The children of teenage mothers are more likely to have lower school achievement and to drop out of high school, have more health problems, be incarcerated at some time during adolescence, give birth as a teenager, and face unemployment as a young adult."


Like the quote said before in my last point, high quality sex education reportedly can increase the use of contraceptives and condoms which, in turn, can reduce teen pregnancy. This can improve the futures of many teen girls and boys, as most teens may not be ready for a child, especially when most of them are still living at home and are in the care of their own parents.
harrytruman

Con

Why not just give them a course similar to DARE and teach them "just say no." So much simpler, condoms are only 98% effective, while just "not" is a full 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancies.
Debate Round No. 3
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you for posting your rebuttal! Here's my defense.

First, my opponent says that schools should teach a course similar to the D.A.R.E. program and its "just say no" message. I'll break this down into a couple parts, starting with the D.A.R.E. approach and then the message they should teach, according to my opponent.

I. D.A.R.E.

To start, D.A.R.E. doesn't relate to sex education.

"Launched in 1983, D.A.R.E. is a comprehensive K-12 education program taught in thousands of schools in America and 52 other countries. D.A.R.E. curricula address drugs, violence, bullying, internet safety, and other high risk circumstances that today are too often a part of students’ lives." [1] D.A.R.E. mainly focuses on drugs and bullying. You can see this if you look at the D.A.R.E. website previously cited.

Also, it's been proven that the D.A.R.E. program has been ineffective, in terms of its anti-drug message.

"Students who went through DARE weren’t any less likely to do drugs than the students who didn’t. In fact, there’s some well-regarded research that some groups of students were actually morelikely to do drugs if they went through DARE.

"Scientists knew DARE was ineffective relatively early on, but the program grew anyways. The program’s eventual reform was the result of a long and hard battle between evidence-based research, and popular opinion." [2]

Also, may I add, my opponent said "Why not just give them a course similar to DARE..." This goes against his entire argument saying that sex education shouldn't be taught in schools, as he says they should teach a program like D.A.R.E.. He contradicts himself in that round. I'm not saying it takes away from his arguments, but it's something to think about.

II. "Just Say No."

I'll just put this out there: this is a prime example of sexual repression.

"Sexual repression is a state in which a person is prevented from expressing his or her sexuality. Sexual repression is often associated with feelings of guilt or shame being associated with sexual impulses." [3]

What are some examples of this? Condemning homosexuals, slut shaming, and the argument that we should "wait until marriage" to have intercourse are some common examples.

But why should we teach the concept of "just say no"? My opponent never explains this in a clear way. He attempts to, but I'll get to that later.

Anyway, I can agree with this, but only in certain circumstances. If the teenager in question isn't interested in sex or wants to wait, that's up to them. If someone is attempting to sexually abuse or rape them, they have every right to say no. But again, everyone is entitled to their body. If they consent to safe, healthy sex, I see no problem. While some may not agree with it, they aren't in that situation. It's only an issue to the two (or more) people involved in the sexual acts.

I mentioned earlier that my opponent tried to give a reason as to why we should teach "just say no." He said "condoms are only 98% effective, while just 'not' is a full 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancies."

What makes my opponent think that condoms are only 98% effective? That's a pretty large percentage! The remaining 2% could be a result of the condom tearing or going past its expiration date. (Yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, condoms do have an expiration date. [4])

"No type of condom prevents pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) 100% of the time. But if you and your partner are having sex, nothing protects against STDs better than a properly used condom." [5]

Yes, not having sex does mean a 100% chance of not getting pregnant, (unless you count sperm donations and such) but again, everyone is entitled to their body. If they want to have sex, they should be allowed to, as long as it is consensual and not hurting anyone.

Thank you for an interesting debate. As the rules say, I ask my opponent to waive the following round.

Citations
[1]http://www.dare.org...
[2]http://priceonomics.com...
[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://m.kidshealth.org...=
[5]http://m.kidshealth.org...

harrytruman

Con

Last I checked you had to be 18 for your choices with your body to count, i.. that's why you have to be 18 to have sex otherwise it's considered statuatory rape. So people have rights over their bodies, but this doesn't apply. This is what I meant by "just not," and "just not," isn't a sighn of shame in ones "sexuality." Enable or sex o be legal, it has to be consentual, and you have to be an audult to engage in a contrat. {1}

Wouldn't it just be easier to pass a law saying "don't have sex before you are 18 under penalty of death."

{1}. http://blogs.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DonutQueen 8 months ago
DonutQueen
To begin I would like to point out that cons opening statement was only 1 sentence long. He stated that sex ed should be taught by parents and not the government. To which pro provided multiple study's showing how orphaned and neglected children would not get that opportunity. In cons next speech he says with no supporting evidence that in 1958 people would not have taught sex ed at schools and that he has already learned these things. This however is not a rebuttal to pros argument. Con also says that if children to not have the proper home life to be taught by parents than the children can just look it up. This statement however has multiple flaws, first what if the child does not have any means of using the internet and if they did have internet how do we know the children would be getting the information from valid sources. Pro then shows study's about STD rates and teen pregnancy rates. Con then has a 2 sentence rebuttal about how because condoms only prevent pregnancy 98% percent of the time we should just teach them to not have sex through the DARE program instead of how to have sex safely. Pro then says that the DARE program has nothing to do with sex and would not help in that manner. Con then gives another speech which is not the format agreed on. This speech says that you need to be 18 for your choices with your body to count. All in all con gave very short speeches, rarely provided rebuttals, did not follow the format, and gave only one source throughout the entire debate which was a blog.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: WampumDP// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I was torn and still am, but it's clear that miss bailey won for technical reasons.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. No matter how clear the voter may think their decision is, they still have to explain those "technical reasons", which requires assessing specific arguments made by both debaters and coming to a decision based on them.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
RFD:

Normative resolution, equal burdens of persuasion. Pro argues that education about safe sex will prevent the spreading of STDs, etc. in students. Con is entirely non-responsive to this outside of views that people in the 1950s would have objected to this, which doesn't have any link to the resolution whatsoever. Con offers a counterplan, asking to teach them purely abstinence. That seems like a concession in itself, because abstinence-only sex education is also sex ed in itself, which is sufficient reason to vote Pro. Pro shows that abstinence-only education is a form of sexual repression, which is harmful, and that merely teaching them that isn't going to prevent sexual activity in children, thus mitigating Con's counterplan and upholding her own offense. Con then offers a new argument in the final round, asking for capital punishment for sexual activity under-18, but fails to properly give reasons for this (since killing them is as bad as spread of disease). Thus, I vote Pro.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Note: my vote was presented on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
I think the reason for the confusion is that "kritik" is misspelled - hence the lack of Google results.
Posted by missbailey8 9 months ago
missbailey8
Very well. harrytruman is my opponent.
Posted by harrytruman 9 months ago
harrytruman
I want to accept this.
Posted by missbailey8 9 months ago
missbailey8
You're welcome!
Posted by dtien400 9 months ago
dtien400
Never mind. I found another, more colloquial definition. Thanks for your help though :)
Posted by dtien400 9 months ago
dtien400
Thank you but I'm still not quite understanding. English is not my first language (I'm Vietnamese). So a kritkik is basically arguing about the nature of an argument instead of the argument itself?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DonutQueen 8 months ago
DonutQueen
missbailey8harrytrumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
missbailey8harrytrumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that parents are not always available to teach kids about sex. Even present parents may be incompetent or unqualified. Con responds by saying a ?better generation? does not agree with the resolution which is irrelevant. He also claims that his personal Sex Ed class was bad which is irrelevant and does not address Pro?s contentions (lack of available, competent parents). Pro explains the things you learn in Sex Ed classes and how it can be useful at promoting sexual health. Con says kids should be taught to ?Just say no? to sex because abstinence is the only safe option. Pro contends that ?Just say no? programs are ineffective. Con suggests that you need to be 18 to legally consent to sex (untrue). Ultimately Con did not respond at all to Pro?s points about the utility of Sex Ed or the fact that schools may be the only competent teacher. Con did not explain why schools shouldn?t teach Sex Ed; he only stated parents should teach about sex (but did not support this).
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
missbailey8harrytrumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Normative resolution, equal burdens of persuasion. Pro argues that education about safe sex will prevent the spreading of STDs, etc. in students. Con is entirely non-responsive to this outside of views that people in the 1950s would have objected to this, which doesn't have any link to the resolution whatsoever. Con offers a counterplan, asking to teach them purely abstinence. That seems like a concession in itself, because abstinence-only sex education is also sex ed in itself, which is sufficient reason to vote Pro. Pro shows that abstinence-only education is a form of sexual repression, which is harmful, and that merely teaching them that isn't going to prevent sexual activity in children, thus mitigating Con's counterplan and upholding her own offense. Con then offers a new argument in the final round, asking for capital punishment for sexual activity under-18, but fails to properly give reasons for this (since killing them is as bad as spread of disease). Thus, I vote Pro.