The Instigator
CrzyDrumlineChic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
robjohn
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 14720
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

This round is to be conducted similar to a policy debate round being:
Round 1 Serves as the affirmative basically stating the resolution and case, while the neg serves to clarify any unclear or uncertain areas of explanation.
Round 2: Affirmative answers questions, neg attacks case
Round 3: both attack etc
Round 4: Conclusion, why Aff or Neg should be winner

*I reserve the right to Fiat and any counter plans must include documentation.

The number of pregnancies has increased sharply over the last decade. Now whether the United States decides to step up to the plate and actually prevent these pregnancies, or tries to once again to implement the old outgrown conservative stance of abstinence. Which brings me to the question,
RESOLVED: The United States Should Increase Funding for the Promotion of Sexual Health Among Teens
Now by sexual health, I am specifically addressing the passing out of condoms in public schools, but if another issue is to arise, I will gladly refute.

So onto contention 1, Harms

Harm 1:
TEENS ARE HAVING SEX, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. No matter what you say or do, you will not prevent this action. Though not all teens are having sex, there always will be some that do. So, given this fact one must decide either to accept it and prevent the further harms, or to ignore it and hope it will get better.

Harm 2:
Teens are being fed the wrong information about sex. Pornography, the internet, and television all send messages to teens about sex. Some good, most bad. TV shows where lovers explicitly chase after one another, no condom, make sex seem like the most simple of casualties. Pornography, showing sex as nothing but merely but a toy often show partners without condoms having intercourse or oral sex which ultimately leads to STDS. So with the given fact that kids are going to watch tv, they are going to get on the internet, and some(illegally of course) will look at porn, and with the messages that they are potentially sending to kids, the least we could do is increase sexual awareness such as by handing out condoms, and demonstrating the correct technique, etc.

Harm 2:
Teen pregnancies are on the rise. According to the NewYork Times on January 26, 2010

"After more than a decade of declining teenage pregnancy, the pregnancy rate among girls ages 15 to 19 increased 3 percent from 2005 to 2006 — a turnaround likely to intensify the debate over federal financing for abstinence-only sex education."

http://www.nytimes.com...

So as we have seen the pregnancies are for a fact on the rise for teenagers which all in all can create a turn in lifestyle such as dropping out of school.

Harm 3:

Conservative views are outdated in modern day.

Though as much as the public may not want to accept it, the views of conservatism, abstinence until marriage, etc are outdated in this new modernized world. With technologies such as the internet and television continually improving, and with our right to free speech, ideas are free to flow, good or bad. And the idea of promiscuity before marriage has spread like wildfire.

Which brings me to my plan:

The United States Should Increase Funding for the Promotion of Sexual Health Among Teens

Funding: The money that originally used to promote abstinence only can be reversed to be used to promote condom usage, condom handouts, and demos of proper condom usage.

Contention2:
Advantages

Advantage 1:
By demonstrating the proper methods for sexual behavior, the number of teen pregnancies will ultimately decrease due to the information given in schools. Also for those that are afraid to go to the stores to buy condoms for reasons such as transportation, embarrassment, etc, there will be a safe way for these teens to get condoms thus preventing pregnancy.

I look forward to hearing my opponents views.
robjohn

Con

Re: Harm #1: Why must anyone other than the individual involved and his/her family decide anything? You have not established that it is the business of or responsibility of others.

Re: Harm #2: Handing out condoms does not increase sexual awareness. Handing out condoms does not ensure or guarantee they are being used. Handing out condoms is like making drunks wear seatbelts. Public schools have been teaching sex education since the 60's or earlier; has the government effort improve the situation or made it worse?

Re: Harm #3: Conservative views may be unpopular among liberals, but that does not mean they don't work.

Re: Advantage #1: As history has amply shown, government is not the solution to most problems and it can only make most social problems worse by interfering with society. Furthermore the government is not responsible for society, it is responsible to society.
Debate Round No. 1
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

Well to answer the harm 1 question, yes it is the persons personal choice, however just because one decides to have sex prematurely, does not mean they have the access the needed protection such as condom (male and female) spermicide, birth control etc. And that is where the government comes in. I am not stating that it is the governments sole responsibility for a persons decision, however by implementing this plan the government would be helping others to understand the harmful side effects of unsafe sex among teens thus increasing awareness, and lowering the probability of pregnancy.

For the attacks on harm 2:
My plan does not only call for handing out condoms, my plan calls for increased awareness in public schools. I agreee that handing out condoms does not completely prevent unwanted pregnancy and or STDs, ut the handing out of condoms in consistency with the teachings of how to properly use a condom wil in turn increase awareness thus preventing unwanted pregancys and or STDs. It is true that the government has been teaching sex education since the 60's but this education has ben based on abstinence. Though I agree that bstinence is the best way, for some teens it is simply not applied in todays world. The internet and television has revolutionized the worlds thinking, thus policys must change. As I have shown with my new York times evidence, the time for a new policy is now. As the times change, policys need to change with it.

As for the attack on my advantage:
Could you please further extend your argument and give me this ample evidence and how it directy links to my case.

I thank my opponent for responding quickly, and am enjoying this debate so far (:
robjohn

Con

Re2: Harm #1 You have not proven the government has any responsibility. Where does this responsibility come from? When you say government you are saying the tax payers because the government has no money of its own. Saying the government has a responsibility is no different than saying your neighbor is responsible your birth control needs and sex education. Regardless of the result or intention, the end doesn't justify the means.

Re2: Harm #2: I disagree as a recipient of said training in the 60 and 70s. It was not about abstinence. Teaching abstinence is not the norm, it is the exception and usually found in private schools, not public schools. You have conceded that sex education and handing out condoms is ineffective compared to abstinence. Is there an argument here?

Re2: Harm #3: Was this contention conceded?

Re2: Advantage #1: I will extend my argument by citing two examples. 1) In the 1960's the Johnson administration proposed and won passage of many bills to create what was called the Great Society, to end poverty, obstinsibly to help minorities. Since the creation of the Great Society the poverty rate for black Americans has not improved, out of wedlock births have tripled, once strong families/communities have been destroyed, nearly half a million blacks are aborted every year, a feat even the KKK could never have a achieved or dreamed of. 2) The federal government created the Dept of Education in late 1979. Education quality has steadily decreased and costs have steadily increased since that time. The US had world class public schools before and has steadily dropped far in the rankings. Even some third world countries doe a better job than the US. There are very few things the government can do well and that is just the nature of government. It is not about sincerity, compassion or intentions, it is about results.

As for responsibility one must remember that society's existed before governments. Societys create governments to do the things that society cannot do for itself, such as maintaining and army, providing courts to resolve conflicts. Given this it is clear that governments are responsible to the people. Government does not own society or the people; the people own the government. I cite of Declaration of Independence as self-evident proof.

As for why it relates, you have claimed the government has a responsibility and a ability to solve the problem. My claim contends the government has no responsibility and you have not provided an origin for that responsibility. I further gave examples that the government is not capable of solving the problem and usually makes the problem worse.

Best wishes to you and thank you for allowing my participation.
Debate Round No. 2
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

So if the plan were to change from the United States Federal government taking action to Possibly state responsibility would it make my case more justifiable?

for Harm 2: Yes i did agree that abstinence was completely better, but it is not acceptable for schools to teach abstinence because for alot of teens, they would not even consider it. Now apply that to my case being that because such methods of abstinence are so rarely practiced today it is important to make sure that they are at least being safe.

And just for arguments sake, until you provide me with ample evidence that teaching abstinence is not the norm then I will assume that it is.

As for the response to harm 3: I don't really understand what you mean by that. Sorry. I'm only 16, I apologize, and this is my first year of CX and public forum debate I have done in my school so I am still pretty much a newbie.

And I'm sorry if you have any disads for my plan I havnt caught any.
robjohn

Con

Re3 Harm #1: I would not say it is more justifiable, but it would defintely be Constitutional instead of unConstitutional.

Re3 Harm #2:I would contend that using condomns is not proven to be any more acceptable than abstinence. Most teens would not even consider it. Your statements imply we can make sure they are at least being safe. After teens are educated and given condomns how do we make sure they are using them? I contend that condom use is just as rarely used as abstinence. I further contend that those who do use condemns everytime without fail are still not guaranteed to be safe from unplanned pregnancies or STDs.

I am unable to provide evidence of abstinence being taught as the norm or any other method. Unfortunately I wouldn't know where to find it. I am 50 years old and you may disbelieve me, but my experience and recollection over the years is that teaching abstinence is always fought against when the issue is brought up in public schools for the very reasons you began this debate with. Disbelief is fine as I cannot prove it one way or the other. I encourage you to always be skeptical of everyone (me, the schools, the news, and government). Listen and study boths sides, decide for yourself. Be an open-minded, respectful to others and independent thinker, that is the important thing. Search for the truth. Although we disagree on this issue, I think you are well on your way to being a open-minded, respectful, independent thinker! Don't ever give up. Critical thinking is so important to your future. Don't ever let anyone tell you what to think. The purpose of education is to learn how to think.

Best wishes.
PS this is my first debate here, although I have been debating informally all my life
I'm sorry my response to your advantage isn't clear. Understanding the principles of freedom is something all Americans should be taught, its our heritage and schools used to teach it. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are the result of all known human history about government and freedom/slavery. If you haven't been exposed to the principles and history of freedom it would be very to reply. I would like to encourage you to study freedom. It is worthy of your time and important to your future.
Debate Round No. 3
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

Ok I get what you are saying about my plan.

But whether the government or states or who ever implements this plan, it's still not realy any argument about my actual harm that teenagers are having sex.

http://www.familyfirstaid.org...

If you follow this website, all it is basically saying that the United States has the highest percentage of teenagers who have sex before the age of 20. So with the proof that I have given being that Teenagers Are indeed having sex, My harm still remains, as although you addressed my pla, you sort of replied to it as a harm, but this is my actual harm 1.

So when it all comes down to it, this round is mainly about harm 3, that abstinence is a no longer effective process for teaching sex in public highschools due to harm #1.
My opponent has given me reasons that oppose this belief, but he stated clearly that they were just his recolections over the years. But as we all know in debate actual evidence is required for it to be considered important in the round.

So if you take a look at this website http://teenhealth.about.com...

You will see that in fact abstinence only programs have been taught lately, and according to this website, some of the principles of these were not all based on fact. In fact they even support my harm when they state clearly word for word that

"Abstinence-only programs do not help reduce sexual behavior, teen pregnancy, or STDs transmission in teens.
The purpose of sex education is to help reduce the risky behavior and teach how to minimize the risks if sexual behavior occurs. Abstinence-only programs have not been shown to do any of the things that they aim to do. Additionally, because condoms and other contraception are not discussed, teens are continuing to have sex but are not using contraceptives. Abstinence-only programs are not only not helping, but they may be creating a generation of teens who are ignorant of how to protect themselves during sex.

Current research shows that, of people who have sex, the vast majority have pre-marital sex. Additionally, abstinence-only programs completely ignore the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning teens. At some point, most teens will likely chose to have sex with someone. It will be important for them to have the facts and the tools to protect themselves. From the most current research, it does not look like abstinence-only programs can fill this need."

So as we see here, these harms cannot clearly be solved by any abstinence program. Teens need an environment in which they can learn safely about sex, which is even quoted word for word in this article also:

"Current research shows that, of people who have sex, the vast majority have pre-marital sex. Additionally, abstinence-only programs completely ignore the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning teens. At some point, most teens will likely chose to have sex with someone. It will be important for them to have the facts and the tools to protect themselves. From the most current research, it does not look like abstinence-only programs can fill this need."

I have provided evidence just to show the extent to which my harm is at and just to show you the consequences of not passing this plan.

As for Harm 3#, if you just cross apply the previous evidence I gave you, you will see that these teen pregnancies are on the rise due to this lack of information.

Now to go onto the attacks that were made:

So my opponent has continually brought up the point that though we may provide teens with condoms, they will not use them. But however, with any given plan there is always a sense of doubt. However my plan does not only call for just handing out condoms, it calls for education on sex. No, you cannot be 100% sure that they will always use one, but you can be sure that they know how if the need arises.

As for my harm 3 that conservative views are outdated in a modern world.

Ok, we need to get realistic about teens these days. They are getting more information from television and the internet about sex than their own parents, and what is the medias mesage about sex : Do it! It's fun!

So we know for a fact that teens are recieving these messages and the article I provided earlier about the abstinence only program even stated its self that some of those principles being taught were wrong, and not based on fact. So if we look at this logically, when someone tells you something you know or suspect is wrong? You ignore them. Which is exactly what is happening in schools today! Teens are ignoring these abstinence principles because they are wrong.
Now I am not saying that abstinence is wrong, because I think abstinence is great. I am saying that some of the principles being taught about abstinence are wrong, which ultimately causes more confusion in a teenagers brain on the what and how tos of sex.

So for my plan, which was for schools to start handing out condoms, and teach about proper usage and also stop implementing abstinence as the only way, we can see that this will be a positive step in solving all of these harms that I have presented. No, it will not happen over night, but I believe with common sense and the right toools, teens wil be able to make better decisions about pre-marital sex.

I thank you for my time, and I have had fun debating you!(:
robjohn

Con

I disagree with the statement "But whether the government or states or who ever implements this plan, it's still not realy any argument about my actual harm that teenagers are having sex." The essence of your original argument is "should" the United States do something; I contended that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to do anything about this per the limits placed on it by the US Constitution. Everything else is besides the point and not germane to claim made (Should The United States Increase Funding for Sexual Health Among Teens?). The claim was not "how should the United States ...".

I appreciate you comments, thoughts and participation. Best wishes!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CrzyDrumlineChic 6 years ago
CrzyDrumlineChic
Actually, I hate spreading, but if you can't think quick enough to keep up with their words, then that's your own fault. But I do agree that CX is proceedingly becoming a horrid speaking event due to spreadign even though it is based off of speech. In my rounds I speak clearly, but assuming this cannot be applied to internet arguments, that comment is really irrelevant to todays case.
Posted by CrzyDrumlineChic 6 years ago
CrzyDrumlineChic
Well definately not the topic. This would ost likely never arrive as a topic. I just folowed the basic guidelines. I'm in CX, but I didn't feel it was truly necessary to write out the entire plan, so I just shortened it.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
THIS IS GAY AND POLICY IS GAY TRY LD IT ACTUALLY REQUIRES THOUGHT NO SPREADING THE HELL OF A ROUND.. you suck
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Lol this ain't policy or CX.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
CrzyDrumlineChicrobjohnTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Your resolution is a "should" when your argument argued why it is neccisary, stick to your RESOLUTION
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
CrzyDrumlineChicrobjohnTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "The essence of your original argument is "should" the United States do something" - Not refuted.