The Instigator
missbailey8
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Should Sex Education Be Taught At Schools?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 87846
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

missbailey8

Pro

Round 1 acceptance. Looking forward for the debate. Good luck.
Hayd

Con

I accept. I would request that we make this a shorter debate, keep the responses to around 2000-4000 characters. Look forward to Pro's case. BoP is shared. No kritiks.
Debate Round No. 1
missbailey8

Pro

To start my arguments for sex education in school, I would first like to thank CON for taking me on for a debate. This will (hopefully) be a peaceful debate all slander, loaded words, or otherwise harmful effects put into the opposition forcefully. This should be a good challenge.
If you didn't notice before, I'm perfectly fine with sex education in a classroom setting. I think it will save people from potential threat, harassment, and abuse, as well as strengthen knowledge of real STDs, STIs, and the like beyond what you hear from your best friend's older brother.
First, my list of every topic in my opening statement and argument.
A. Prevention of disease
B. Warning of teen pregnancy
C. The differences between harassment and real, meaningful love in a healthy relationship
D. The fact that it's healthy and natural

A. Prevention of Disease
In sexual education, you learn how to use a condom, what it is for, and why it's necessary to use one. Because, believe it or not, if you don't know how to use a condom, then you'll be in serious trouble if you end up with an STD or a child in the end of it. Teenagers aren't exactly ready for either of those.

Also, you learn to identify what is safe and what isn't in a sexual experience. For example, if you're planning to have sex, then you should definitely get birth control or a supply of condoms. If you don't you run the risk of disease.

B. Teen pregnancy

Let's face it, like I said previously, teenagers are most likely not ready to have a child. The costs, responsibility, and time aren't enough for some adults. To prepare them for the present and future, teenagers should be thought precautions to ensure when having sex, like the argument before with disease prevention.

According to www.chef.org, in 2013, 273,105 babies were born with ages 15-19. That means 26.5 children per 1,000 of this age group in the U.S alone! And this was when the rate of teen births dropped by 10% from the previous year! While this is an improvement, it certainly doesn't even count for teenagers younger than 15 or other countries.

This costs U.S taxpayers money for increased health care, foster care, and lost revenue tax because of lower educational attainmentin young mothers. Action should be taken to warn teenagers about the consequences of teen pregnancy, what it entails, and why it should be avoided. If sexual education is taught, that will be an easier message to spread among children and teens.

C. Harassment and Abuse

Everyone should have the right to know and be taught difference between real, meaningful love in a normal sexual relationship and harassment. There is a clear invisible line between both and that line should be revealed to teens.

Surprisingly, a lot of people don't know this difference. Lots of people assume that in a dating relationship abuse or rape is not present, that it isn't valid. Others think you can still consent if you're intoxicated and that it isn't as bad if you're unconscious. There is clearly something wrong with every single one of those examples and people should know why. They should know the signs of abuse in case they, a friend, or a family member are in that situation. It could literally mean life of death in some cases.

D. Sex is healthy and natural

It's a tough time in those teenage years; puberty, finding yourself, the like. Some may be self conscious. "Am I doing anything wrong? Is this okay?" Well, they can be taught that it is normal to have sex and to feel for someone else in this way. It's perfectly natural. This can help ease the pain through the most confusing part of their lives, as long as they know what they're doing.

Through everything I've written in these opening statements, I'm very much excited for the opening statements of CON and the rest of the debate following. Thank you for reading and good luck.
Hayd

Con

One of the primary reasons we should not teach kids sex education is that it will give boys erections. When someone is talking about sex, especially teenage boys; they get boners. And this is embarrassing when he stands up and everyone sees. Getting a boner is one of the most embarrassing things that can happen to someone. And due to social media, word spreads fast. Next thing you know, the kid is teased and bullied all the time and commits suicide. Although this merely seems like a hypothetical, think about every single school in America, and the possibility that one, just one school would have this happen. This is something that will happen, likely many times. And the lives of children, even one child, outweighs any argument Pro can make.

Second, sex education is subjective. What's safe and is not safe, what one should do and should not do, are something that the child should decide on their own. Having the school teach them what to do is interfering with the parents job, and the child’s choice and freedom.

Plus, as many people know, kids defy authority. A child is actually more likely to do something if you tell them not to, and vice versa. Any parent knows this. Thus, teaching children safety and what to do in sex would just make them want to violate all the lessons you taught them in the first place. Sex education in effect, only makes the situation worse.

To conclude, Pro cannot deny the possibility of a child committing suicide, considering every single school in America will be undergoing it. The possibility that one, just one school, one year, will have one child have this happen is a large possibility. Even if he doesn’t end up committing suicide, it still causes them great distress and depression, which outweighs any “education” benefit Pro can bring up. Furthermore, sex education is a subjective matter, and thus the school has no right weighing in on it. And lastly, sex education will only make things worse since children will defy authority.

Debate Round No. 2
missbailey8

Pro

missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you for posting your opening arguments and I shall begin by saying sorry that I forfeited the other round, but luckily I made the debate longer than it should be, so it won't be a problem. I will be making my rebuttal towards CON and his arguments.
The first situation you said is purely speculation and highly hypothetical, like you even said. Even if this chain of events wasn't hypothetical, with the circumstances of sex education is almost the opposite of sexy. You typically have a middle-aged science teacher showing you diagrams, live birth videos, and discussing sex in the least appealing way possible.
It's almost like the doctor's exam where the doctor cups your testicles and makes you turn around and cough. You might think you'll get aroused, but really it's just an awkward experience that will be burned in your mind for years.
Second, while sex education is slightly subjective, it is not to the extent of what's safe and what isn't, for the most part. You can't deny that getting AIDS or HIV isn't safe, nor is accidentally having a child as a teenager. Most children wouldn't choose to get any of these options.
Thirdly, yes, kids do defy authority, but like I said before, STDs probably aren't very appealing to them. Also, you said in your second point that "having the school teach them what to do is interfering with the parents job..." A parent does count as authority, right? How is the child's parent more qualified to teach sex education than a teacher is?
CON is right though; I can't completely deny that there is a POSSIBILITY of a child committing suicide, that sex education is SLIGHTLY subjective, or that child MIGHT defy authority
Thank you for the debate. CON held very good arguments. I look forward to his rebuttal.
Hayd

Con

Firstly, in response to Pro's R2 arguments, they are all negated by the fact that the child will do the opposite of what the sex education person tells them. Thus all of Pro's arguments are actually turned to my side. Instead of prevention of disease, its more likely to create more disease, etc. for every single point.

Onto defense. Pro says that my first argument is purely a hypothetical. But when Pro's plan is implemented across the entire country and millions of schools go through the process over years and years, this is bound to happen once. Pro has to admit this, as it is truism. Pro then says that the material is not cringeworthy, but these boys are going to be going through puberty. Thus anything mentioning sex is going to make them think about it, and thus get a boner.

Yes, that part of it isn't subjective. But how to have sex, and the methods, and when to, they are all subjective.

Well, kids aren't always the most responsible. They are likely to not think the threat of STDs are real, and thus not adhere to any rules about it. The want to defy authority is overrpowering. Pro then says that the parent is a source of authority for the child, that is true, but the parent has the best connection with the child; they gave birth to them are have lived with them their entire lives. Thus, although they might still defy their parents authority, they are more likely to defy a teacher.

Pro concedes that the possibility a child may die is evident. The life of a child outweighs anything Pro can bring up, thus, right now, my arguments outweigh.
Debate Round No. 4
missbailey8

Pro

To conclude our debate, I say thank you to CON for taking part in it. This was an eye opening experience and I believe CON held very good arguments.

In summary, if sex education is taught, it will prevent disease, warm of teen pregnancy, and help teenagers and children recognize healthy and unhealthy relationships. I believe every child should have the right to be taught about sex at an early age so that precautions can be taken. If this eventually does happen, then it will benefit children, teens, and parents.

Thank you.
Hayd

Con

Thank you to Pro for this debate, and I hope she stays on the site so we can continue discussing issues. I conclude that sex education will only worsen the situation since children will want to defy authority. Pro has dropped the fact that the parent has more influence on the child, so take that into acount. Thank you
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
My analysis of Fire's vote is here: http://www.debate.org...

I usually don't publicly critique votes like this, but Fire called my vote out first without justification or response to my questions, so I thought I'd explain why it's Fire's vote that is wrong and not mine. This is done for benefit of Fire, more than anyone else.
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
Fire has failed to justify any possible problems with their vote. He merely said my vote is "wrong," without properly justifying that claim - I doubt he has even *read* my RFD. I've repeatedly asked him what's wrong with my vote, and he has replied: "Your reasoning was fine, your decision is wrong." That begs the question. One can't assume the conclusion is false if the premises are true.

On that account, I will proceed to analyze Fire's vote soon and explain why my reasoning is perfectly sound. Fire's proclamation that his vote is the only correct one is completely unwarranted. Sure, there are people who do that, but they are usually people with strong reasoning as to *why* that is the case. Fire has failed to provide any reasoning for his claim, and to that extent, the claim is nonsense.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
@Fire

Care to explain the problems with my vote?
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
This is a win for Con. I don't know why there are Pro votes.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument relies on the link turn that children will do whatever they are told to not do. Con doesn't justify or warrant this at all. And Pro doesn't fully concede this like Con thinks; he admits a possibility, but argues that STDs will be a sufficient deterrent for children. Con doesn't show that sex ed is subjective, and Pro refutes that by demonstrating that STDs and teen pregnancy are objective harms. Con's turn brings up an impact of suicide, but the impact is turned against Con when that argument is refuted via deterrence. I don't buy the "children defy authority" point at all, since Con's only rebuttal to the deterrence point is that the desire to defy authority is very strong (which isn't explained and is a bare assertion), and that essentially dooms much of Con's greater magnitude. Pro's deterrence argument is much more convincing, and through that he proves that sex ed reduces impact of STDs. Con drops harassment, another strong argument. Conduct to Con due to forfeit.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains the decision in the context of the arguments given, explaining why each point factored into the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by Quadrunner 11 months ago
Quadrunner
If I put forth the effort to vote it would read something like tejretic's paragraph. What's wrong with it?
Posted by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
tejretics vote is wrong.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
== Impact calculus ==

(1) STD's also outweigh the embarrassment from unwanted erections, et cetera. Standard impact calc gives this debate to Pro.

(2) STD's and pregnancy outweigh subjectivity because they are objective harms prevented.

(3) The *possibility* of suicides is conceded, which does give Pro some level of impact, but impact calc requires weighing *probability* and magnitude. Under probability, deterrence refutes suicides and greater numbers of STD's defeats it on magnitude. Teen pregnancy is also harmful, which is in fact conceded by Con and used as an impact to the turn; refuting the turn allows a Pro win.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
== Add-on to my RFD ==

Con doesn't show how children seek to defy authority. He doesn't explain that argument at all. Debaters should explain arguments in a way enough to persuade a lay judge, which Hayd fails to do. It's basically a bare assertion. Pro at least *explains* the deterrence point -- which, while not clearly elucidated to be strong, still stands while analyzing probability because he shows that sex ed clearly explains STD's and a child would be scared of death. Con doesn't show how, say, a 14-year-old wouldn't be able to understand the severity of death properly.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Jerry947// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: See Comments for RDF.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The RFD is more than sufficient in examining the debate and explaining the outcome.
************************************************************************
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Rosalie 11 months ago
Rosalie
missbailey8HaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff from pro
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
missbailey8HaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument relies on the link turn that children will do whatever they are told to not do. Con doesn't justify or warrant this at all. And Pro doesn't fully concede this like Con thinks; he admits a possibility, but argues that STDs will be a sufficient deterrent for children. Con doesn't show that sex ed is subjective, and Pro refutes that by demonstrating that STDs and teen pregnancy are objective harms. Con's turn brings up an impact of suicide, but the impact is turned against Con when that argument is refuted via deterrence. I don't buy the "children defy authority" point at all, since Con's only rebuttal to the deterrence point is that the desire to defy authority is very strong (which isn't explained and is a bare assertion), and that essentially dooms much of Con's greater magnitude. Pro's deterrence argument is much more convincing, and through that he proves that sex ed reduces impact of STDs. Con drops harassment, another strong argument. Conduct to Con due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
missbailey8HaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here http://www.debate.org/forums/education/topic/83877/
Vote Placed by Jerry947 11 months ago
Jerry947
missbailey8HaydTied
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: See Comments for RDF.