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

Sexual Education Should be Taught in Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,977 times Debate No: 73759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




This debate is about whether or not sex ed should be required to be taught in public middle and high schools. Pro will take the side that it should, and would benefit the children, and Con will argue either abstinence only should be taught, or there should be no sex ed at all.

Round one is for acceptance, rules, and format, round two is for arguments only, and round three is for rebuttals and closing statements. Feel free to add definitions from a credible source or ask questions related to a recent argument in the comments. Please keep a polite way of words, and if you forfeit a round, please specify why in the comments. If these rules are broken by either opponent, voters are encouraged to deduct points from their side.

I wish the best of luck to my opponent, and look forward to the debate.


Thank you, Miss Lena, for the opportunity to have an intelligent exchange on this topic.

I definitely accept. I would propose that either sex education at home given by parents or close relatives or abstinence-only education in a public school environment would be more valuable and beneficial for a child's overall education.

Again, thanks for opening up this topic for debate. I look forward to an interesting and edifying exchange!
Debate Round No. 1


Having a clear, direct, and purely factual sexual education program in our nation"s public middle and high schools would be beneficial to the kid"s and their parents lives[1].

Middle school is about the time, if not a little later, than when puberty typically starts. Puberty is about sexual maturity, and when adult bodies begin to develop[4]. Huge changes take place in the bodies of children of both sexes, such as girls getting their periods and boys getting erections[4], and they need to know what"s happening. In high school, kids going to be exploring their bodies and engaging in sexual activity[3]. Over half of teenagers have had sex by the time they"re out of high school[2].

Abstinence-only schooling or homeschooling doesn"t always work, either[5]. In fact, teen pregnancies are more common in states where sed ed is required to be taught as abstinence-only[7]. An overwhelming majority of teens actually say it would be easier to abstain if parents and teachers would address sex in an open and honest way[6], instead of pretending it is always a beautiful act of love that only adults engage in.

If sex ed were more straightforward, honest, and comprehensive, our younger generations would be much safer in their sexual encounters (which would also be less common).



Thank you again, Miss Elena, for this very interesting choice of topic. I hope that we both are engaged by the material "for" and "against" the proposed topic, as we argue our various positions.

The reasons for teaching children about sex at home by parents and kin are simple, intuitive, and fairly straightforward. However, what is simple and straightforward is often difficult to explain in so many terms. So, here goes:

1.) Children need someone they can relate to in explaining what "sex" means or entails.
1a.) Children are mostly close related to and relate to their kin;
1b.) Professionally paid educators who must follow a sexual education curriculum tend not to be kin;
1c.) Therefore, kinfolk are better suited and adapted to explain what "sex" means or entails to a child unless the two categories overlap.

This is simple, striking, and compelling. But wait! The objections do and will follow. 1A is difficult to combat, no matter what your ideology. It is true almost by definition unless one is to take an extraordinary position.

But proposition #1 itself may lie in dispute.

Let's talk about the "elephant" in the room which calls into question point 1.

It has to do with "professional education" in case anyone was wondering.

The counter-argument has a simplicity of its own. Those who are best suited to deliver sexual education are professionally educated; therefore, children will get the best sexual education from the professionally educated people who know how to teach sexual education and not the parents.

OK. That's pretty simple.

But is it true, empirically or otherwise?

Well, the problem with the counter-argument is that it does not seem to work. Those who are professionally educated do not seem to impart a better or more factual sexual education to their charges than do parents.

How can that be? That is so counter-intuitive!

Here's why: Professionally educated persons tend to present information about sexual education in a way that is divorced from reality. Their information might be correct, in a technical sense, but divorced or separated from reality, it fails to educate and may actually lead to immorality.

That's right. I know that it is difficult to imagine but professionally educated teachers may increase immorality among students in a misguided attempt to educated them about sexual anatomy.

Also, we know that home education is overall more effective than public school education. Home education students score higher on standardized tests and receive a more competent education without professional educators. [1]

Another reason against public school sexual education is that it violates the separation of church and state. State-based education is taxpayer-funded and cannot contain faith and morality. But when one educator attempts to impart their view of sexuality to students, that is based on their faith and morals. Thus, technically, it is illegal.

These three arguments will do for now. Sexual education is best explained by those kinfolk nearest psychologically and morally to the student. Professional educators do not deliver better education, sexually oriented or not, given the statistics. And sexual education funded by taxpayer dollars is illegal and violates the separation of church and state.

I look forward to the rebuttal period and the ensuing discussion.

[1] "On average, homeschooled students outscore their public (state) school peers by 15 to 30 percentile points (figure 5)." Brian D. Ray, Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling: Facts and Stats on the Benefits of Home School (Nashville, TN.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004) 48.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you! I think this has been my best debate.

1. "[Close relatives can better] explain what "sex" means or entails."

Sexual meaning and sexuality in general is fluid. People have the right to their own opinions and actions regarding how their sexualities should be expressed. It is important to know basic information, and some parents might only tell their point of view, saying that some activities are 'wrong,' while schools would have to follow an unbiased curriculum.

2. "Professionally educated teachers may increase immorality among students in a misguided attempt to educated them about sexual anatomy." defines immorality as "sexual misconduct[1]." That is also legally called sexual assault. There is no direct connection between learning about reproductive organs and immorality increases. If you have a valid source for this, please provide it.

3. "Home education students score higher on standardized tests and receive a more competent education without professional educators."

While that may be true, this is not a debate on whether or not homeschooling in general is beneficial. If a parent has consciously sent a child to a public school, they're most likely relying on that to educate their students. If we leave sexual education up to the parents, there is no guarantee they will get taught about sexual health.

4. "When one educator attempts to impart their view of sexuality to students, that is based on their faith and morals."

Teachers at public schools are legally required to follow a curriculum with only a little flexibility[2]. It would defiantly be illegal if their lesson plan was anything that strayed far from fact.

[1] also

Closing paragraph:
Sexual education is a must that decreases the rick of unwanted results caused my sexual activities. Children need to receive it on some basic level so they can understand how their bodies work and how to keep them safe. The only way to ensure kids get that education is to require it to be taught.


Well, thanks to MissLena, for this topical resolution to discuss and debate.

I will begin by rebutting the 2nd round material and move into the 3rd round material of my opponent.

She is arguing that we should use taxpayer monies to provide sexual education to children. The
Huffington Post article, however, does not provide an argument that taxpayer dollars should be used
for this effort. It simply makes the assumption that this is best. Without seeing an argument for the position, there
is nothing I can rebut here. In fact, the HP article does not indicate why parents, themselves, could
not provide a decent, well-rounded sex education to their own children. The article is merely arguing
that teens will (likely) become sexually active. That is not an argument to support the position that
we ought to use taxpayer monies to teach sexual education apart from parental guidance.

2nd - The second source cited by my opponent is more of the argument of the first. This is about
sexually active teens and changes in their bodies. But that is not an argument that taxpayers ought to
subsidize sexual education outside of the home. I would actually like to interact on this topic more
in depth but I would like to see an argument set forth for it.

3rd - My opponent *could* be making the case that, since teen pregnancy occurs, that the state should,
therefore, subsidize sexual education to reduce that pregnancy rate. I didn't see her make that case but
let's give the benefit of the doubt here.

From the link she cites, we can conclude that teen pregnancy rates are falling all over,
even in states where sexual education is not publicly funded and required in public schools. That's remarkable!
That means that even where children are not forced to undergo sexual education, they still have a declining
teen pregnancy rate. That is significant, indeed! In addition, these teen pregnancy rates are even lower
in a sense since some (as many as 20%) are married! Therefore, it is not like having an out-of-wedlock

At the conclusion of Round 2, she writes, "If sex ed were more straightforward, honest, and comprehensive,
our younger generations would be much safer in their sexual encounters (which would also be less common)."
But, again, that is not an argument on behalf of her position that we ought to be using taxpayer dollars to
subsidize public sexual education. Parents could also make sex ed "more straightforward, honest, and
comprehensive" and my opponent has not shown how this cannot happen.

OK, well, we'll move onto her rebuttal remarks in Round 3.

Her 1st objection is to close relatives only imparting what they want to about sex. She asserts, "Sexual
meaning and sexuality in general is fluid." Exactly my point! If sexual meaning and connotations and taboos
are "fluid" then parents or kin are best in a position to impart the local, cultural meaning of that
fluidity. That rules out a standardized curriculum for all America and it saves the taxpayers millions of
dollars, to boot.

Her 2nd objection is to correlating promiscuity with sexual attack. I agree with her that promiscuity or sleeping
around quite a bit, having multiple partners does not always lead to sexual attack. However, if parents are
opposed to promiscuity in their children, they are the ones responsible for passing down their values. Taxpayer-
funded public sexual education is not necessary.

Her 3rd objection is that we are not debating home school education in general. However, general trends in
home education, such as higher test scores, *are* relevant insofar as it paints a picture of effectiveness which
is not the same picture that we have from public schooling. Thus, if parents teach their children more effectively
at home, their sex education would be correpondingly more effective as well.

On her 4th objection, I maintain that my opponent missed the point and did not address the substance of my argument.

I argued as follows: faith-morality-based education >>>> conflict with the separation of church and state.

She argued that sexual education has little flexibility in how it is taught. That is not the point. The point is
that it is a sensitive area of faith and morals and is a part of family responsibility, not public education
facilities and that it would violate the separation of church and state if it uses taxpayer dollars.

Thanks so much for this exchange! I really appreciate MissLena in taking the time to set this up.

I hope that it is a learning experience for both of us.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
@Himans45: I am a teenager and I have stayed abstinent.
Posted by Himans45 2 years ago
Abstinence only education lmao... Like us teenagers would ever stay abstinent...
Posted by MissLenaElan 2 years ago
I have changed the topic of this debate, as no one has accepted.
Posted by Nivek 2 years ago
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
The difference between civil unions and marriage is the word "marriage." Any other difference can be remedied by law. The basis for appealing denial of same-sex marriage to the Supreme court is that the word "marriage" shows approval by society, and that gay people feel bad at being denied that approval by society. Therefore laws denying use of the word "marriage" do not provide equal protection under the law. It seems to me this logic applies to any true love relationship, including a rich old lady who loves her cats, polygamy, whatever. The easy resolution is to abolish legal use of the word "marriage" entirely. Use "civil union" universally. "Civil union," by agreement, has no connotation of social approval, so use can be restricted by law.
Posted by JackOfDiamonds 2 years ago
By the way, I full on support gay marriage, but a large reason for that, besides that it is someone's right to marry whoever they want, is that civil unions do not receive the same legal protection and regulation as marriages.
Posted by JackOfDiamonds 2 years ago
This isn't really a debate topic, because there's a definitive answer: civil unions are not legally equal to marriages.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
they are the same -- a heteronormative institution designed to keep children indoctrinated and destroy free homosexual relationships

don't believe me? here's 50 billion kritikal theory articles

also the debate space is a gigantic penis; here's an ABCD format theory shell
No votes have been placed for this debate.