Should safe sex be taught in schools (pro) or abstinence-only (con)?
Debate Rounds (4)
I affirm the resolution; Yes, schools should teach safe sex in schools.
Round 1: Acceptance, and stating your position)
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Attack opponent
Round 4: Attack and defend case.
Jarod Kintz once said, "She game me money to buy condoms, and instead I bought a book of baby names."
In this quote, it shows the importance of safe sex. In schools, if you only teach teens about abstinence, when the time comes (whether they are older, or instead make the choice now) they will not know how to stay safe and prevent from getting pregnant or getting a sexually transmitted disease.
According to Advocatesforyouth.org, abstinence-only programs hold no effect.
Many abstinence-only curricula contain "false, misleading or distorted information." such as,
A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
HIV can be spread via sweat and tears.
Half of gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for HIV.
Pregnancy can result from touching another person"s genitals.
Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide."
As many as 10 percent of women who have an abortion become sterile.
Not only are these programs giving wrong information, but The public prefers comprehensive sex education to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs by a wide margin.
99 percent of Americans wanted programs to cover other STIs as well as HIV.
98 percent wanted youth to learn all about HIV and AIDS.
94 percent wanted youth to learn how to get tested for HIV and other STIs.
93 percent wanted youth to be taught about "waiting to have sexual intercourse until married."
83 percent wanted youth to learn how to put on a condom.
71 percent wanted youth to know that "that teens can obtain birth control pills from family planning clinics without permission from a parent.
You can read more here
I would like to wish good luck to my opponent.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org...; this a resource I used to look up evidence. And Sex Ed promotes gay actives, and if you don't know how some people react to gays, imagine how it would ruin their image of their child. They would straight up hate them. Plus it should be the parents job because it's easier to take from someone you grew up with (Sorry people who take offense) someone, and it's easier to take from them than to someone you see one or two years. One of my teachers are German, and they lived in Germany for years, and they teached their kids about sex and anything sex related to their children, so why can't Americans do the same? It may be awkward, but people need to learn this stuff from their parents. They get the point better across because they know how the child will react most of the time.
Knowing the information the schools give out today in this day and age, they would have you entrust your life in a thin piece of latex, and they will tell you false information, like they do with world war 2. It has been proven with science that it's impossible for the nazi's to of killed as many of the schools says. Where I live, they post pone it and they teach it in English, so during gym, they would tell you to trust your life in a condom, they won't fail! Hearsay. http://www.heritage.org... Shows that being sexually active early is harmful to women. A study was conducted, it was with 10,000 women between 15 and 44 and they ones whom became sexual active early was more likely to be depressed, go through break ups, read for more. But saying that having a condom will make sex "Safe" But it won't. Just might prevent pregnancy and STD's, but not always.
My opponent provided false resources, (the first link) http://www.rightwingwatch.org... leads to a page not found.
Also, you cannot promote homosexuality, for it is their choice, not something they are influenced by.
The second link shows NO link between schools teaching safe sex and teenagers having sex early. Teenagers do not show more sexual activity when schools teach safe sex.
Second, when schools teach safe sex, they are not giving false information, and my opponent has no resources to back him up.
When schools teach safe sex, they state the percentage of how safe certain things are, for example, they state that abstinence is 100% preventable, and condoms are only around 85% effective.
No safe sex class will say that condoms are 100% preventable.
When schools are teaching safe sex, they are NOT encouraging teens to have sex.
It is shown that abstinence-only programs influence teens to have sexual intercourse more than learning about safe sex.
Also, teens should be properly informed in case they do have sex in high school, or in the future. Abstinence-only doesn't mean ALL teens will not have sex. They are only stating that they should not have sex, yet, teens feel more rebellious, therefore end up having sex.
Finally, not all parents will teach their teenager about safe sex in time, (before they have sex.) And not all parents will have all the information needed to properly inform their child about how to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
In conclusion, my opponent provided false resources and inaccurate information.
As shown in round 2, I given resources, (advocatesofyouth.org) and shown facts, that abstinence only programs only provide false information, and that young people have the right to learn about safe sex. In conclusion, I urge you to vote affirmative.
Rebuilding: Sex Ed is a touchy subject, so it maybe easier to talk to someone you trust. So it may be awkward, but asking a parent is easier to talk to than your gym teacher. Or telling a cop where they touched you (I know, it's not easy. It's the worst other than being arrested.) Plus, if we have unanswered questions we can get on Google and look it up to avoid awkwardness, if you don't have one, you can do it at a library or some where like your friends IPad mini.
The only arguments my opponent has provided is music and awkwardness between parents. These are weak arguments due to the fact that,
First, we do not control music, and what it says in it. We can't control what teenagers listen to it, and how it will effect them. You can have someone who listens to a sexual song, and still not have sex until marriage, or after high school, almost as if "Getting it out of their system before they do something stupid."
The topic states whether safe sex should be taught in schools or not, and this argument has nothing to do with the topic.
Second, my opponent states that it awkward when schools teach it.
When you are in school, you are surrounded by friends, and people you are close to. And its more awkward to talk about it with your parents than school, here is a link for example
In conclusion, my opponent failed to provide useful evidence and arguments that fits the topic.
This is why I urge you to vote for affirmative.
Good luck for the last round, and it was fun debating you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is correct in his stance and did a better job explaining it than Con did. Pro has better spelling and grammar because he just did. Con's grammar was awful. They tie in conduct because they were polite and did not use foul language or fight. Overall, Pro did a much better job and took it much more seriously.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.