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

Should safe sex be taught in schools (pro) or abstinence-only (con)?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 973 times Debate No: 49188
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Resolution: Should we teach safe-sex and abstinence, or abstinence-only?
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.

Good luck.


I accept this challenge, I am not to good, but i might hold my own on this. I say schools shouldn't teach them about safe sex.
Debate Round No. 1


Glad for you to join,

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, 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.

Con; 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. 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.
Debate Round No. 2


First, I will attack my opponents case and then rebuild mine.

My opponent provided false resources, (the first link) 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, ( 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.


My counter argument: Have you heard today's music? It's all about sex and relationship problems a lot. Let's take Kesha's Take it off. She it talking about sex. Just researching this, I had a thought, it was from eminem's song "The real slim shady" where he was talking about parents not wanting to know what a women's clit is, but they have the discovery channel. In which they have a documentary called understanding sex. In which they explore sex. They will show it on discovery channel. If kesha was to make a song about sex and how it can ruin your life, kids will learn it with out knowing, because she would express it in a sexy manner I should say, making more of an impression on them, so when they're singing it in school for a talent show, they wont let them, because this isn't sex ed.
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.
Debate Round No. 3


To provide a road map: I am going to attack my opponents case, rebuild mine, then explain why you should vote for me.

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.


I knew the information I gave was useless, but you opened the topic I wanted to explore was the music, and you say it's weak, but I might make it strong. Most parents let little kids put on kesha, and that is about sex, young minds that are still in development like mine, it can affect your line of thinking and make you want to have sex, the more you listion to that garbage, the more you want it, it becomes lust. Re-training your brain after years of the same sex songs, they will want it, and pulling their mind out of the gutter might not be easy, depending if they're open minded or not. "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" is a quote from yours, and then you say "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." which ain't true for all of us, but some it is. I noticed you didn't mention the documentary, so I assume that I could explore on it. It's true that it ain't airing anytime soon, but I only checked the discovery channel, because I assume that they only have the legal rights. Not only discover would do it, but animal planet might make a documentary on it, we dunno what the people running the TV station is thinking. I enjoyed debating with ya.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
Very.... very tempted to troll.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
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.