The Instigator
themohawkninja
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Haroush
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Sex education not be made compulsory in school.

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...
themohawkninja
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 40996
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

themohawkninja

Con

I will be continuing the discussion from the opinion poll to bypass the random moderation system.

I will be presenting my rebuttal from Haroush's last statement as my argument for round one.

Original opinion link: http://www.debate.org...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I didn't say they couldn't comprehend anything, but they couldn't comprehend the consequences for the actions they may take. "

Either way, my point remains that the real-life evidence shows otherwise in that teenage pregnancies have dropped over time [1]. If teenagers couldn't comprehend the consequences, then they wouldn't think to use contraceptives, as they wouldn't know the risk of pregnancy.

"And exactly. That is your logic "so what". How immature is that type of thinking? Besides, it's not saying to practice abstinence for the rest of your life, but as long as you are kid and until you get older and are more maturely ready to have sex and have a kid. As far as your assertion goes, teenage pregnancies going down isn't because of kids making safe choices, but because of the use of contraceptives."

What's wrong with that? If they suffer no consequences from STDs or pregnancies, then it's just good feelings and exercise.

"Not to mention, you tried to use the analogy of the relationship of a seat belt to a car. Now, doesn't that seat belt encourage you and make you feel comfortable to drive the car too? "

Not really. Seat belts aren't exactly the most comfortable thing in the world if you ask me.

"How could you say there is less and less need for children in this world? That is far from the truth. That also supports abortion. "

Yet you once again assert no evidence for it.

"Goes right along with what this feminist critic said that is a woman herself...."

How does consequenceless sex have to do with a "socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."? I mean, I can see the anti-family part (which I don't care much for families anyways, but that's just me), but the rest of that has no connection.

Now then, as for your sources...

www.Fertilityauthority.Com states that: "Fernando Gomez, M.D. of the Reproductive Medicine Institute in Orlando, Florida, says there is no scientific evidence that birth control pills cause infertility."

http://www.Dailymail.Co.Uk... states that: "[The use of] Thalidomide while pregnant ... could have had any influence on [a mans] infertility." It is well known that many drugs can have effects on a pregnancy, so I don't see your point here. We are talking about contraceptives, not prescription sedatives.

www.Askdrkhaled.Com/infertility/male%20infertility%20clinic/3Causes% states that those issues that you state are found in "less than 1% of cases".

1. http://www.hhs.gov...
Haroush

Pro

So, I will start with my rebuttal.

"Either way, my point remains that the real-life evidence shows otherwise in that teenage pregnancies have dropped over time [1]. If teenagers couldn't comprehend the consequences, then they wouldn't think to use contraceptives, as they wouldn't know the risk of pregnancy."

Even if there was a drop in pregnancies, the U.S. still remains with the highest rate in teen pregancies in the western world.

"The AAP’s “Policy Statement—Sexuality, Contraception and the Media,” published in August 2010 notes that, “According to the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 46% of all high school seniors have had sexual intercourse, and 14% have had 4 partners or more. Although pregnancy rates have generally been decreasing since 1991, the United States still has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the Western world. …"

http://www.all.org...


"What's wrong with that? If they suffer no consequences from STDs or pregnancies, then it's just good feelings and exercise."

And wouldn't common sense tell you that encouraging them to go have sex would lead to a greater risk at catching a STD, despite them wearing a contraceptive? Besides, there is still a chance they could get pregnant either way, with or without the condom.

"Other than total sexual abstinence, only condoms currently provide significant protection against HIV and other STIs.
Condoms cannot protect against viral infections on portions of the anatomy that condoms do not cover."

http://www.themediaproject.com...
So, wouldn't it be better for us to teach our kids abstitence only with the consequences they could reap by having sex? This would include statistics that show the high percentage of people in the U.S. with STD's.

"Not really. Seat belts aren't exactly the most comfortable thing in the world if you ask me."

Maybe they aren't, but they sure keep you safe and encourage you to drive the vehicle.


"Yet you once again assert no evidence for it."

No evidence for what? That the statement "There is a less need for children in this world," supports abortion?

"How does consequenceless sex have to do with a "socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."? I mean, I can see the anti-family part (which I don't care much for families anyways, but that's just me), but the rest of that has no connection."

Actually, there is an increasing percentage of the population which doesn't have family values, and are single parents (divorced and sexually active with people they know). Therfore, that goes along with women leaving there husbands, killing their children (abortion), and becomming lesbians (fragile relationships which leaves each gender mistrusting the other).


Here is more evidence that supports abstitence only projects....

"Studies That Reported Positive Behavioral Change:
Positive behavioral changes were reported in 12 studies of abstinence programs.
(See the Appendix and Reference List.) Abstinence-only Intervention.
A 2010 study in the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, published by the American Medical Association, concludes that an "abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation" as well as recent sexual activity among a group of African-American adolescents.[16]
Two years after attending an eight-hour abstinence program, about one-third of the participants had initiated sexual activity, compared to nearly one-half of the non-participants who enrolled in a general health program.
That is, the abstinence program reduced the rate of sexual initiation by one-third. Moreover, abstinence program participants who became sexually active were not less likely to use contraception.
By contrast, the study also evaluated two alternative interventions, one that only taught contraception (i.e., the "safe sex" approach) and another that contained both abstinence and contraception content (i.e., comprehensive sex education), and found that neither program delayed or reduced teen sexual activity.[17]
Furthermore, these programs, whose main emphasis is on contraception, failed to increase use among adolescents.
The study implemented a randomized controlled experiment, the gold standard for such evaluations. Six hundred sixty-two sixth- and seventh-grade African-American students participated in the experiment.
These students attended four public middle schools that served low-income communities in a northeastern U.S. city. Students were randomly assigned to attend an eight-hour abstinence-only program, an eight-hour "safe sex" program that promoted contraception, an eight- or twelve-hour comprehensive sex education program that taught both abstinence and contraception, or an eight-hour general health class without any sex education content, which served as the control group.
Reasons of the Heart. Taught over 20 class periods by certified and program-trained health educators, the Reasons of the Heart (ROH) curriculum focuses on individual character development and teaches adolescents the benefits that are associated with abstinence until marriage."


"A 2008 study evaluated the ROH curriculum's impact on adolescent sexual activity among seventh grade students in three suburban northern Virginia public schools.[18]
The researchers also collected data on a comparison group of seventh grade students in two nearby middle schools that did not participate in the program. Students in those schools instead received the state's standard family life education, which included two videos on HIV/ STD prevention and one on abstinence.
The evaluators surveyed seventh grade students in all five schools before and after the program. They found that, a year after the program, 32 (9.2 percent) of the 347 ROH students who were virgins at the initial survey had initiated sexual activity, compared with 31 (or 16.4 percent) of the 189 comparison group students.
Controlling for the differences between the comparison group and ROH students,[19] the study reported that ROH students were half as likely as comparison group students to initiate sexual activity.[20]
The evaluators concluded, "This result appears to compare favorably to the reductions in initiation achieved by some of the abstinence programs [evaluated in earlier studies]."
[21]Sex Can Wait. Sex Can Wait is a three-series abstinence education program with one series for upper-elementary students, a second for middle school students, and a third for high school students.
The Sex Can Wait program lasts five weeks and offers lessons on character building, important life skills, and reproductive biology.
A 2006 study evaluated the program's long-term (18-month) impact on adolescent sexual behavior.[22] The researchers compared students who participated in Sex Can Wait to those who received their school districts' standard sex education curricula on two behavioral outcomes: overall abstinence and abstinence during the last 30 days.
As the authors noted, "the study compared the effects of the Sex Can Wait curriculum to 'current practice' rather than true 'control conditions.'"[23]
The researchers found that, 18 months after the program, upper-elementary students who participated in Sex Can Wait were less likely than non-participants to report engaging in recent sexual activity.
Among middle school students, participants were also less likely than non-participants to report engaging in sexual activity ever and in the preceding month before the 18-month follow-up. Finally, among high school students, the authors found reduced levels of sexual activity in the short term but not in the 18-month follow-up.[24]"


http://www.heritage.org...;


I would note to not be like a lot of people out there who don't give credit where it's due. Respect for one and another hasn't ever been needed more than today.
Debate Round No. 1
themohawkninja

Con

"Even if there was a drop in pregnancies, the U.S. still remains with the highest rate in teen pregancies in the western world."

All the more reason to keep at the education. Currently, 83.5% of teenagers use condoms, pills, injections, or vaginal rings to protect against pregnancy, and only 12.9% had used no birth control in their last sexual encounter [1]. When this statistic is placed in the context of the correlation between mandatory sexual education, and teenage pregnancies by state, there is strong evidence to suggest that sexual education decreases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies [2].

"And wouldn't common sense tell you that encouraging them to go have sex would lead to a greater risk at catching a STD, despite them wearing a contraceptive? Besides, there is still a chance they could get pregnant either way, with or without the condom."

Sex ed doesn't encourage sex, it encourages safe sex practices [3]. Also, of course there will be risks, but there is a reduced risk (I reiterate the strong correlation between contraceptive use and teenage pregnancy).

"So, wouldn't it be better for us to teach our kids abstitence only with the consequences they could reap by having sex? This would include statistics that show the high percentage of people in the U.S. with STD's."

According to the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, abstinence only education has "not demonstrated successful outcomes with re-gard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices" [4]. Also, your source regarding the alleged decrease in sexual activity from abstinence only education asserts that: "Two years after attending an eight-hour abstinence program, about one-third of the participants had initiated sexual activity, compared to nearly one-half of the non-participants who enrolled in a general health program. That is, the abstinence program reduced the rate of sexual initiation by one-third." One half minus one third is one sixth. Your source can't even do basic math correctly.

"Maybe they aren't, but they sure keep you safe and encourage you to drive the vehicle."

Exactly, it does keep me safe. As for encouragement, I can't say, as I have never driven any significant distance without wearing it.

"No evidence for what? That the statement "There is a less need for children in this world," supports abortion?"

Less need for children. Abortion is an entirely other debate.

"Actually, there is an increasing percentage of the population which doesn't have family values, and are single parents (divorced and sexually active with people they know). Therfore, that goes along with women leaving there husbands, killing their children (abortion), and becomming lesbians (fragile relationships which leaves each gender mistrusting the other)."

That is a non-sequitur (without evidence to support either) to say that a lack of family values causes women leaving their husbands, getting abortions, and becoming homosexual. On that last point especially, homosexuality has genetic causes not (or at least as well as) societal ones [5].

1. http://www.cdc.gov...
2. http://thinkprogress.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Note how seven different sources in six citations state that sexual education doesn't increase the onset or frequency of sexual activity).
4. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
5. http://www.nytimes.com...
Haroush

Pro

So, I will start with my rebuttal. I am surprised you had no comment about the importance of respect. I must say, it bothers me respectfulness doesn't SEEM to be of an importance to you.

"All the more reason to keep at the education. Currently, 83.5% of teenagers use condoms, pills, injections, or vaginal rings to protect against pregnancy, and only 12.9% had used no birth control in their last sexual encounter [1]. When this statistic is placed in the context of the correlation between mandatory sexual education, and teenage pregnancies by state, there is strong evidence to suggest that sexual education decreases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies [2]."

Not standard sex education. It decreases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies, but doesn't guarantee you will not get pregnant and doesn't protect you against ALL STD's. Not only this, the contraceptive only protects you wear you are covered at. This being said, it is really easy to get a STD because of contact between the semen and skin.

"Sex ed doesn't encourage sex, it encourages safe sex practices [3]. Also, of course there will be risks, but there is a reduced risk (I reiterate the strong correlation between contraceptive use and teenage pregnancy)."

Why have a reduced risk when there could be no risk? Besides who wants to be infertile?

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com...

"Of all methods of birth control,
the ones at most risk for possibly causing future infertility are the IUD
and the hormonal birth control methods such as the pill,
hormonal contraceptive ring, and so on."

"In some women, however, pharmaceutical birth control methods has been shown to adversely affect or destroy the cervical fluid needed for conception.

Usually, but not always, this fluid is regenerated once the woman goes off the pill.
If the fluid is damaged or not regenerated, there is a possibility that conception could be impacted."
"it is possible that bacteria will hitch a ride on the IUD device, enter the uterus causing it to become infected and damaged. If infected, the infection can, in some cases, lead to infertility."


"According to the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, abstinence only education has "not demonstrated successful outcomes with re-gard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices" [4]. Also, your source regarding the alleged decrease in sexual activity from abstinence only education asserts that: "Two years after attending an eight-hour abstinence program, about one-third of the participants had initiated sexual activity, compared to nearly one-half of the non-participants who enrolled in a general health program. That is, the abstinence program reduced the rate of sexual initiation by one-third." One half minus one third is one sixth. Your source can't even do basic math correctly."

It seems to me mainstream scientist don't want to give abstinence programs any credit because they are scared of the sucess they have had. I guess you didn't want to read that evidence I presented supporting abstinence programs in round one, huh?

Here, I'll put some more salt on that wound.

http://www.heritage.org...

"Not Me, Not Now. Not Me, Not Now, a community-wide abstinence intervention program, 
targeted children ages nine through 14 in Monroe County, New York, which includes the city of Rochester. The Not Me,
Not Now program devised a mass communications strategy to promote the abstinence message through paid television
and radio advertising, billboards, posters distributed in schools, educational materials for parents, an interactive Web site,
and educational sessions in school and community settings. The program had five objectives: raising awareness of the problem of teen pregnancy,
increasing understanding of the negative consequences of teen pregnancy, developing resistance to peer pressure, promoting parent- child communication,
and promoting abstinence among teens.Not Me, Not Now was effective in reaching early teens, with some 95 percent of the target audience in the county reporting that they had seen a Not Me,
Not Now ad. During the intervention period, there was a statistically significant positive shift in attitudes among pre-teens and early teens in the county.
The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county dropped by a statistically significant amount, from 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent, during this period.[33]
The pregnancy rate for girls ages 15 through 17 in Monroe County fell by a statistically significant amount, from 63.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1,000.
The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and upstate New York in general, and the differences in the rates of decrease were statistically significant.[34]"

"Exactly, it does keep me safe. As for encouragement, I can't say, as I have never driven any significant distance without wearing it."

Well, I know having a seat belt in a car enourages me to drive because it makes me FEEL safe. Just like many other people out there. I mean, it is pretty dangerous driving a car considering the fact more people die from car accidents than gun shots.

"Less need for children. Abortion is an entirely other debate."

Well, technically this is going off topic anyways. Why? A less need for children goes along the lines of overpopulation. We aren't debating whether the world is overpopulated or not. We are debating whether standard sex education is beneficial or not. And if standard sex education is MORE beneficial than abstinence programs.

"That is a non-sequitur (without evidence to support either) to say that a lack of family values causes women leaving their husbands, getting abortions, and becoming homosexual. On that last point especially, homosexuality has genetic causes not (or at least as well as) societal ones [5]."

http://www.prb.org...

Marital Status Among Young Adults Ages 25-34 (Percent)

20002006200720082009
Married 55.1 48.9 48.2 46.9 44.9
Never Married 34.5 41.4 42.6 43.9 46.3

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex

As for homosexual orientation statistics, no one really knows how much of the U.S population is homosexual. I'd imagine the census bureau will be paying much closer attention to this. Though considering the increase of LGBT rhetoric, you'd think the LGBT population is exploding in numbers.

Lastly, here is more evidence supporting abstinence programs.

http://www.heritage.org...

"Abstinence by Choice. Abstinence by Choice operated in 20 schools in the Little Rock area of Arkansas. The program targeted seventh, eighth, and ninth grade students and reached about 4,000 youths each year. The curriculum included a five-day workshop with speakers, presentations, skits, videos, and an adult mentoring component.A 2001 evaluation analyzed a sample of 329 students and found that only 5.9 percent of eighth grade girls who had participated in Abstinence by Choice a year earlier had initiated sexual activity compared with 10.2 percent of non-participants. Among eighth grade boy participants, 15.8 percent had initiated sexual activity, compared with 22.8 percent among non-participating boys.[35] (The sexual activity rate of students in the program was compared with the rate of sexual activity among control students in the same grade and schools prior to commencement of the program.)""

"Project Taking Charge. Project Taking Charge was a six-week abstinence curriculum delivered in home economics classes during the school year. It was designed for use in low-income communities with high rates of teen pregnancy. The curriculum contained elements on self-development; basic information about sexual biology (e.g., anatomy, physiology, and pregnancy); vocational goal-setting; family communication; and values instruction on the importance of delaying sexual activity until marriage.The program was evaluated in Wilmington, Delaware, and West Point, Mississippi, based on a small sample of 91 adolescents.[40] Control and experimental groups were created by randomly assigning classrooms either to receive or not to receive the program. The students were assessed immediately before and after the program and at a six-month follow-up. In the six-month follow-up, Project Taking Charge was shown to have had a statistically significant effect in increasing adolescents' knowledge of the problems associated with teen pregnancy, the problems of sexually transmitted diseases, and reproductive biology.The program may also have delayed the onset of sexual activity among some of the participants. About 23 percent of participants who were virgins at the pretest initiated sexual activity during the follow-up interval, compared with 50 percent of the youths in the control group, although the authors urged caution in interpreting these numbers due to the small sample size.[41]"



Debate Round No. 2
themohawkninja

Con

" I am surprised you had no comment about the importance of respect. I must say, it bothers me respectfulness doesn't SEEM to be of an importance to you."

Well, this is a debate about sexual education, and since that point seemed to be irrelevant to the topic at hand, I didn't see much point in commenting.

"Not standard sex education. It decreases the likelihood of teenage pregnancies, but doesn't guarantee you will not get pregnant and doesn't protect you against ALL STD's. Not only this, the contraceptive only protects you wear you are covered at. This being said, it is really easy to get a STD because of contact between the semen and skin."

What are you referring to as 'standard' sex education? Secondly, I must reiterate the fact that nothing, not even surgery is 100% effective against pregnancy, but that does not mean that you should do it, as contraceptives (as asserted by the strong correlation in the previous round) does help prevent pregnancies [1][2].

"Why have a reduced risk when there could be no risk? Besides who wants to be infertile?"

You've contradicted yourself. Should the person have no risk, or not be infertile? Secondly, many people, including myself, wish to never be a father [3]. Personally, I loathe children and understand the huge amount of money it takes to raise a child.

"It seems to me mainstream scientist don't want to give abstinence programs any credit because they are scared of the sucess they have had. I guess you didn't want to read that evidence I presented supporting abstinence programs in round one, huh?"

Aside the evidence that I refuted in round two, it appears that I misread your other evidence as mere sources.

To further provide evidence against your proposition for abstinence only education, I would like to point out a study that show that:" 10 percent of all study youth (8 percent of control group youth and 7 percent of program group youth) reported having unprotected sex at first intercourse. Over the last 12 months, 21 percent of both program and control group youth reported having sex and not always using a condom" [4]. The control group received no sex education of any kind.

Secondly, an article posted by two university professors states that abstinence only education "is limited to teaching that a monogamous, marital, heterosexual relationship is the "expected standard of human activity" and that sex outside such a relationship will be physically and psychologically harmful. Abstinence-only education also advocates only one method to prevent disease and pregnancy, abstinence, and it offers no information concerning contraception and disease prevention except that all methods other than abstinence fail. As a result of its singular focus, the curricula not only pose significant problems with respect to ensuring minors" sexual health, but also ignore the needs of sexual minority youth altogether" [5].

"Well, I know having a seat belt in a car enourages me to drive because it makes me FEEL safe. Just like many other people out there. I mean, it is pretty dangerous driving a car considering the fact more people die from car accidents than gun shots."

Well you are just one person. Secondly, people are generally around cars a lot more than they are around guns, so it would be quite absurd to be afraid of cars all the time.

"Well, technically this is going off topic anyways. Why? A less need for children goes along the lines of overpopulation. We aren't debating whether the world is overpopulated or not. We are debating whether standard sex education is beneficial or not. And if standard sex education is MORE beneficial than abstinence programs."

So, I take it that you are just giving up this point?

"http://www.prb.org...;

What's the point of this? You were asserting that a lack of family values was causing the divorces. Your source cites economic reasons due to women getting an income in this day and age.

"" Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]"

Well what do you know. Some people that use contraceptives happen to get pregnant, and doesn't it make perfect sense that there might be a decent percentage of pregnant women that used contraceptives. The thing is, is that according to a CDC report: "The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15"44 years..." [6]. Your percentages barely make up over 1.5% of women.

" " Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex."

Why did they perceive themselves as being at a low risk? Was this a form of self-medication, or lack of education, or both? Secondly, what does 'unexpected sex' mean? Is that rape, or a spur-of-the-moment situation. No amount of sexual education would help the former, and the latter is the result of high amounts of hormones that education ay not have much effect in such a situation.

"Abstinence by Choice. Abstinence by Choice operated in 20 schools in the Little Rock area of Arkansas. The program targeted seventh, eighth, and ninth grade students and reached about 4,000 youths each year. The curriculum included a five-day workshop with speakers, presentations, skits, videos, and an adult mentoring component.A 2001 evaluation analyzed a sample of 329 students and found that only 5.9 percent of eighth grade girls who had participated in Abstinence by Choice a year earlier had initiated sexual activity compared with 10.2 percent of non-participants. Among eighth grade boy participants, 15.8 percent had initiated sexual activity, compared with 22.8 percent among non-participating boys.[35] (The sexual activity rate of students in the program was compared with the rate of sexual activity among control students in the same grade and schools prior to commencement of the program.)"

Well, according to a congressional study: "...when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners" [7]. One group was given abstinence only education, and the other group had no education. This study was done in both rural and urban communities, showing that the results have relevance to the majority of the country.

As for your other source...

"...the authors urged caution in interpreting these numbers due to the small sample size.[41]"

...It practically refutes itself.

1. http://thinkprogress.org...
2. http://www.webmd.com...
3. http://www.chicagotribune.com...
4. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com...
5. http://www.hawaii.edu...
6. http://www.cdc.gov...
7. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Haroush

Pro

"Well, this is a debate about sexual education, and since that point seemed to be irrelevant to the topic at hand, I didn't see much point in commenting."

*facepalm*

"What are you referring to as 'standard' sex education?"

No comment... (Meaning "safe sex education")

"Secondly, I must reiterate the fact that nothing, not even surgery is 100% effective against pregnancy, but that does not mean that you should do it, as contraceptives (as asserted by the strong correlation in the previous round) does help prevent pregnancies [1][2]."

That still doesn't take away from the fact, abistinence is 100% effective against pregnancy and STD's, if practiced. That being said, it needs to be taught in schools one way or the other. Even if "safe sex" education is being taught in schools. The government shouldn't have the right to only fund "safe sex" education and not Abstinence programs.

"You've contradicted yourself. Should the person have no risk, or not be infertile? Secondly, many people, including myself, wish to never be a father [3]. Personally, I loathe children and understand the huge amount of money it takes to raise a child."

What I was saying is why take the rsik of being infertile, due to either contraceptives or STD's. Why not teach kids to wait until they are adults to have sex? Isn't that a better way to go? Why not teach kids to talk to their parent's about sex and teach parent's they need to talk to their kids about sex so they know the risks of having sex and how they could reap consequences of either contracting a STD or getting pregnant. Doesn't this go along with the parent/child relationship as far as trust goes? To your third comment, all the more reason to not have sex.

"Aside the evidence that I refuted in round two, it appears that I misread your other evidence as mere sources."

That's a big mistake.

"To further provide evidence against your proposition for abstinence only education, I would like to point out a study that show that:" 10 percent of all study youth (8 percent of control group youth and 7 percent of program group youth) reported having unprotected sex at first intercourse. Over the last 12 months, 21 percent of both program and control group youth reported having sex and not always using a condom" [4]. The control group received no sex education of any kind.Secondly, an article posted by two university professors states that abstinence only education "is limited to teaching that a monogamous, marital, heterosexual relationship is the "expected standard of human activity" and that sex outside such a relationship will be physically and psychologically harmful. Abstinence-only education also advocates only one method to prevent disease and pregnancy, abstinence, and it offers no information concerning contraception and disease prevention except that all methods other than abstinence fail. As a result of its singular focus, the curricula not only pose significant problems with respect to ensuring minors" sexual health, but also ignore the needs of sexual minority youth altogether" [5]."

Well, one study versus the many studies I have is very little evidence against abstinence only programs. Besides, even if it does provide evidence against abstinence only programs, I still have evidence in favor of Abstinence only programs. That right there, is enough to prove abstinence only programs is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Abstinence only programs are ineffective.

"Well you are just one person. Secondly, people are generally around cars a lot more than they are around guns, so it would be quite absurd to be afraid of cars all the time."

How could it be absurd to be afraid of cars all of the time? It's not the car that makes the car dangerous, the person behind the wheel does. Therefore, if you aren't afraid of getting into an accident everyday driving on the road, you are more suceptible of getting into an accident yourself.

"So, I take it that you are just giving up this point?"

I wasn't necessarily just giving up this topic, but saying we both should just drop it since it doesn't directly relate to the topic.

"What's the point of this? You were asserting that a lack of family values was causing the divorces. Your source cites economic reasons due to women getting an income in this day and age." Now, look at your comment from the other round.

"That is a non-sequitur (without evidence to support either) to say that a lack of family values causes women leaving their husbands, getting abortions, and becoming homosexual. On that last point especially, homosexuality has genetic causes not (or at least as well as) societal ones [5]."

http://www.prb.org......

Marital Status Among Young Adults Ages 25-34 (Percent)
2000 2006 2007 2008 2009 Married 55.1 48.9 48.2 46.9 44.9 Never Married 34.5 41.4 42.6 43.9 46.3


If you don't get the picture then I don't know what to tell you.

"Well what do you know. Some people that use contraceptives happen to get pregnant, and doesn't it make perfect sense that there might be a decent percentage of pregnant women that used contraceptives. The thing is, is that according to a CDC report: "The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15"44 years..." [6]. Your percentages barely make up over 1.5% of women."


"" Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]"

This goes to show that "safe sex" education just doesn't cut it because people are still making bad decisions, that result in inconvenient consequences. Besides, 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women is a lot more than just 1.5% when it comes to the entire population. We basically aborted an entire country.

" Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex."

"Why did they perceive themselves as being at a low risk? Was this a form of self-medication, or lack of education, or both? Secondly, what does 'unexpected sex' mean? Is that rape, or a spur-of-the-moment situation. No amount of sexual education would help the former, and the latter is the result of high amounts of hormones that education ay not have much effect in such a situation."


33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy
26% had had unexpected sex

If you put these two together that is 59%. Why did I do that? If these people had just simply been taught about the risks and consequences they could reap having sex these statistics wouldn't of been near as high according to the studies I've showed. The 32% could of been lower too, but apparently they weren't educated enough about the consequences for their actions. The parents most likely weren't involved in talking to them about sex either.

"Well, according to a congressional study: "...when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners" [7]. One group was given abstinence only education, and the other group had no education. This study was done in both rural and urban communities, showing that the results have relevance to the majority of the country.

As for your other source...

"...the authors urged caution in interpreting these numbers due to the small sample size.[41]"

...It practically refutes itself."

Evidence can't refute it's self, whether big or small. It is still evidence and still a fact. Like I've stated before, the fact I do have plenty of evidence that shows Abstinence programs as being sucessfull in any kind of way proves abstinence programs are in fact sucessful. Therefore, I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that abstinence programs are sucessful one way or another, despite your findings that abtinence programs aren't sucessful. The fact remains our government is micromanaging our education and should use ANY preventative sex program that is sucessfull. I also have evidence from plenty of different studies that show success. Being that there is MANY studies that have proved my point, this is overwhelming evidence for my argument. This shouldn't go overlooked and should be evident. I could post many more studies that have been done on abstinence progreams, but I feel that would be overkill. Anyways, all of my sources are here to see if you take the time to look. Other than that, adios amegos. Have fun on DDO!!






Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
It's whatever. Good debate either way.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
I agree. Considering the subject, I was expecting many more votes as well.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
It'd been nice if there were more voters on this debate. Though this exact same thing happened in my last debate. Even though I won, I was disappointed with the lack of votes.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
@numidious, I think we were more so tied rather than 5 points apart. Maybe 3 points but 5 points? Come on now. I don't think you read this debate thoroughly enough. If you did you wouldn't of given either of us 5 points.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
themohawkninjaHaroushTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both did well. Pro showed how "safe sex" is still encouraging sex to students in school. I think abstinence is much better. But, I don't think they should be mandatory since it can give students the wrong impression or idea.
Vote Placed by Numidious 3 years ago
Numidious
themohawkninjaHaroushTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided points that pro either did not refute or provided points in support of. For instance, Pro commented that teen pregnancies are high in the US for a western country, which is a point that strongly supports con's argument for compulsory sex ed in school