The Instigator
kenito001
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
Solarman1969
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

The Teaching of Safe Sex Education in Public Elementary School

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/30/2007 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,705 times Debate No: 1188
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (20)

 

kenito001

Pro

The teaching of safe-sex education in public elementary schools is necessary to the moral fabric of society. Children under the age of 12 must currently look to the behaviors of their society for guidance pertaining to sexual behavior. The recent events of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears, younger sister of Britney Spears and star teenage actress of Nickelodeon's "Zoey 101", has taught children that not only sexual activity is okay, but it is also acceptable to engage in unprotected sex outside of a stable relationship to induce pregnancy. These children must be taught the safe way to conduct themselves; they have already been brainwashed by their idol to the point of no return. Sex is no longer unacceptable. Instruction on protecting themselves from their beliefs is the only effective strategy to make the words of parents and teachers more influential than the actions of an underage with legs spread wide as her widespread credentials. The voting issue in today's debate is simple. To quote the often repeated phrase of the gossiping and outspoken Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy of the FOX Network's hit cartoon show The Simpsons, "Oh, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" Kids are now going to have sex. Today's debate must be restricted to whether these teachings should occur in public elementary school.
Solarman1969

Con

This is very simpe, and you obviously too young to be a parent, so you wont know what its like to try and protect your children from inapproprate things

(1) The public schools have no business covering this topic in any way, other than health class, denoting parts and functions , in a dry manner

(2) elementary school (under age 11) is way too young for Children to be learning about sex. they need their innocence preserved.

(3) Some of the current debates raging are whether CONDOMS should be distributed to children age 11 - this is ridiculous

Children should be taught that dating should not occur until at least age 16, and that sex should not occur outside a committed realtionship, and really marriage.

By infusing them with liberal "do what feels good" nonsense- kids are being sold a bill of good that will lead to

* teenage pregnancy
* depression
* STDs
* confusion

It is very important to teach kids that they need to respect eachother and see eacother and human beings to be cared about, NOT sex objects.

Children in high school are NOT emotionally ready or mature enough for sex

Children in Grade school need their innocence protected and need to be sheltered, not exposed, to adult topics

my 2 c
Debate Round No. 1
kenito001

Pro

Urban hip-hop philosopher Chamillionare made his fortune with the lyric "tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty". Every parent's worst nightmare is not to have a sexually active child, but one who is ridin' dirty with their sexual intercourse, risking pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases that will affect the rest of their lives. Safe sex education is the means and solution to protecting America's children from the immorality of an abortion waiting to happen.

"This is very simpe, and you obviously too young to be a parent, so you wont know what its like to try and protect your children from inapproprate things."
Judge me not by my age, but by who I am. Maturity has no direct correlation to capable intelligence. If one is able to emulate the situation, then they are able to understand it. You use this rhetoric to defend against my arguments, however it holds no factual burden.

"1) The public schools have no business covering this topic in any way, other than health class, denoting parts and functions , in a dry manner"
You must elaborate, or this argument becomes a matter of my opinion against yours and nothing is accomplished. A 2005 study by the Guttmacher Institute observed and analyzed the current means of teaching sex education, and criticized them, recommending that they reach a larger age range and promote the means for safe sex.

"(2) elementary school (under age 11) is way too young for Children to be learning about sex. they need their innocence preserved."
"Children in Grade school need their innocence protected and need to be sheltered, not exposed, to adult topics"
As I already asserted in my first round of arguments, the innocence of children has already been destroyed and should not be questioned. This debate is an issue of how to react to their innocence already been destroyed by the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Company. America's freedom in a globalized world has allowed the internet, free time, and other commodities unknown prior to the mid-20th Century to grant pre-teens an opportunity to attempt to cure their own curiosity. Sheltering them will only let the "evils" of society teach them more.

"(3) Some of the current debates raging are whether CONDOMS should be distributed to children age 11 - this is ridiculous"
How is preventing the pregnancy of 11 year old ridiculous? rBGH, an artificial growth hormone used to increase the production of cow's milk in the U.S., has been proven to speed the maturity of young females, causing their menstral cycles to begin at ages as early as 7. It is these flaws of society, the greedy capitalist means to maximize profits, that are betraying our children, not those handing out free condoms. The average age that a female loses her virginity is 14, and it continues to decrease annually.

"Children should be taught that dating should not occur until at least age 16, and that sex should not occur outside a committed realtionship, and really marriage."

"By infusing them with liberal "do what feels good" nonsense- kids are being sold a bill of good that will lead to"
Stereotyping and classifying liberal beliefs is a specious assumption that should not be considered valid. To assume makes an a$$ out of you and me.

* teenage pregnancy
* depression
* STDs
* confusion
Teenage pregnancy can never occur in elementary school. They aren't teenagers yet. The purpose of condoms is to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Sexual activity is linked to helping teenagers cope with depression by releasing chemically enzymes in the brain. It even burns calories in an obese America. The pre-teens are confused now... teaching them will fix it.

The point of this debate is to argue not whether teens and pre-teen should be having sex, but whether this type of education should be taught in elementary schools. You can approach it supporting either no education or abstinence-only education; however, to assume the evils of the world without proposing the means or ways to keep them from our children is defeating the purpose of your attempts at argumentation.

This round, try to use more concrete facts and less ridicule. You don't win a debate by name calling unless you accompany it with arguments that matter. The rules of debating like a Republican don't work outside of the political party...
Solarman1969

Con

First I am just going to list all of your false assumptions, verbatim

(1) Every parent's worst nightmare is not to have a sexually active child, but one who is ridin' dirty with their sexual intercourse, risking pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases that will affect the rest of their lives

there is NO SUCH THING AS "safe sex"

and there are a number of nightmares as a parent, of which you are not, and sexual activity at a young age at all is one of them, condom or not.

(2) Safe sex education is the means and solution to protecting America's children from the immorality of an abortion waiting to happen.

Ok what is "safe sex" - please define

and how do you avoid the EMOTIONAL aspects as a child too young to understand

(3) Judge me not by my age, but by who I am. Maturity has no direct correlation to capable intelligence.

this is ridiculous

kids have not clue and thats why the drinking age is 21

non-parents have no clue on what it is like to be a parent

until you are on your own, have a job, pay rent and have responsibility for your own life, you are a kid and are clueless. period.

(4) You use this rhetoric to defend against my arguments, however it holds no factual burden

Ok, whatever. you can use fancy words that doesnt mean you have a clue of what it is like to have complete responsibility for other human beings

(5) You must elaborate, or this argument becomes a matter of my opinion against yours and nothing is accomplished. A 2005 study by the Guttmacher Institute observed and analyzed the current means of teaching sex education, and criticized them, recommending that they reach a larger age range and promote the means for safe sex.

No I Dont.

the Public schools, or the government schools, have NO BUSINESS teaching others children about sex, homosexuality, anal sex, "safe" sex or any other topic.

This encourages irresponsible behavior. period.

the Guttmacher institute promotes abortion. period. they are in the business of promoting evil among the youth through early promiscuity, period.

What they say , you should do the opposite

Hers is where the EVIL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS LIES

(5)

As I already asserted in my first round of arguments, the innocence of children has already been destroyed and should not be questioned.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

AND I WILL NOT LET EVIL PEOPLE TRY AND SEXUALIZE CHILDREN

IT IS EVIL > PERIOD.

Maybe YOUR innocence was destroyed but most kids HASNT BEEN and should NOT BE.

CHILDREN NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM EVIL. and I WILL DO SO FROM CREEPS WHO WANT THEM CORRUPTED.

(6) Sheltering them will only let the "evils" of society teach them more.

WRONG!

This where you are NOT a parent and have NO CLUE.

Oh gee! just give up and let my kid be a slut!

WRONG! WRONG ! WRONG ! NEVER NEVER NEVER !

(7) It is these flaws of society, the greedy capitalist means to maximize profits, that are betraying our children, not those handing out free condoms. The average age that a female loses her virginity is 14, and it continues to decrease annually.

Now we see more into your corrupted mind .

Oh the EVIL capitalists, eh?

You are infested with marxist thought, my young friend.

You need to get a clue or you will end up down the road of misery

(8) Stereotyping and classifying liberal beliefs is a specious assumption that should not be considered valid

Wrong. Liberalism is a mental disorder and liberals are generally wrong about everything, particuarly sex and kids.

Most of their ideas are either evil or stupid or both.

To summarize, you think thje game is over, kids are corrupted, so just go along with it, teach them how to have sex, and give them condoms

you are plain and simple WRONG.

Kids need to be taught exactly what I said before. period

Happy New Year

Solarman
Debate Round No. 2
kenito001

Pro

NOTE: Safe sex education discourages sexual intercourse. Safe sex education teaches children, much like you intend, to not have sex. Safe sex education merely teaches children who will make the incorrect decision of engaging in sexual intercourse the means to avoid pregnancy. I am not advocating or supporting premarital or sex in childhood. My arguments advocate teaching safe sex education to children. All arguments proposed criticizing me for corrupting children by encouraging sexual intercourse are invalid. That is not my stance. That is not topical to this debate.

Invalid opinions do not carry in a debate round. You offer your harsh opinions, and you state that they are correct because you say they are correct. This isn't justification, it's enraged ranting. Your debate format consists of calling me "plain and simply wrong". This accomplishes absolutely nothing. If I were to follow the same strategy, then I would call you "plain and simply wrong". So, we are both wrong, and nothing is accomplished. That's excellent rhetorical implementation… I'll give you a simple analogy. Math students have to show their work for mathematical equations. If you do not show your work, you do not receive full credit, and may not receive any.

Now, as I stated in my constructive, "Today's debate must be restricted to "whether these teachings should occur in public elementary school." The highlights of all your debates circle around insulting your opponent. If kids are so unintelligent, then why do you consistently lose? Your winning percentage is lower than the Miami Dolphins'. "That's why the drinking age is below 21". I'll give you a history lesson, old man. While my youth restricts my intellect, your old age has resulted in memory loss. The drinking age was changed from 18 to 21 in the 1980s. Am I to assume that the prior generation of 18 year olds was more capable, mature, and intellectual to the point that they were rewarded with the right to purchase alcohol?
I will concede that you consider yourself intellectual. However, there is a difference between being a supposed "intellectual" and being "well-read" Well-read, in simple terms, means that you know what you talk about. You seem to instead take the stance of a jargon attacking Republican by using the words "communist" and "Marxist" to insult a liberal. Read what I say carefully. In my first refutation, I clearly states "To assume makes an a$$ out of you and me".
"You are infested with marxist thought, my young friend."
If you wish to use the concept of "Marxism", please first read what he wrote and understand it. You'd be surprised how different the concepts of "stereotypical communism warding off capitalism" is from Marxism.
Now, moving on to the chronological order of your ill-presented arguments:
""(1) Every …… of their lives

there is NO SUCH THING AS "safe sex"

and there are a number of nightmares as a parent, of which you are not, and sexual activity at a young age at all is one of them, condom or not.""
Firstly, this is addressed above in the note. Obviously, parents do not want their kids to be sexually active. The role of a public school is to provide sufficient education and training for students to make the transition of maturity and knowledge into adulthood. "Safe sex" is defined as a relative term to unprotected sex. Safe sex, to provide a definition, uses contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. There is such a thing as safe sex, unlike what you stated. What you meant to say is that there is no such thing as "completely safe sex". Seat buckles are not completely safe, but they are still the best available alternative. There are no absolutes in anything.

""(2) Safe …… to happen.

Ok what is "safe sex" - please define

and how do you avoid the EMOTIONAL aspects as a child too young to understand""
Safe sex is defined above. Avoiding the emotional aspects of a child too young to understand is curbed slightly by safe-sex education, however, children cannot be sheltered and curbed from the evils of society. Santa Clause and other imaginary entities were created to build a barrier between children and reality. However, it is the child's decision when to break down this barrier themselves. When they do so, they are voluntarily progressing into adulthood with free will. The same is done when a child decides to engage in sexual intercourse.

""(3) Judge ……
kids have not clue and thats why the drinking age is 21
non-parents have no clue on what it is like to be a parent
... you are a kid and are clueless. period.""
Once again, you are assuming. You only know me based on my profile and what I have written. I, on the other hand, judge you by only what you have said. Specifically incorrectly defining "communism" and "marxism" leads me to conclude that you do not know what you are talking about. My age makes me legally an adult, and unless you continue to belittle other individuals on this site, then you yourself are more childish and immature than any of the teenagers you argue against.

""(4) You … burden
Ok, whatever. you can use fancy words that doesnt mean you have a clue of what it is like to have complete responsibility for other human beings""
Can you not handle fancy words, the ambrosia of the articulate and intellectual? I don't need to know what it's like. This isn't a competition of life experiences. It is a competition of presented arguments against one another. No matter how old or experience in the "real world" I am, so long as I am able to argue better than you, then I am correct.

""(5) You …… safe sex.
No I Dont.
the Public schools, or the government schools, have NO BUSINESS teaching others children about sex, ....
Hers is where the EVIL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS LIES""
I will then cite another source that is not "evil". UNICEF (a charity organization of the UN dedicated to improving the lives of children worldwide, if you are unfamiliar with it), promotes safe sex education as the best means to educating young citizens worldwide. It is the best solution to preventing teenage pregnancy without promoting it. Proponents of comprehensive sex education, a.k.a. safe sex education, which include the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Health Association all argue that sexual behavior after puberty is prolific in the 21st Century, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized; they also claim that denying teens such factual information leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Or these credited sources may be too liberal, communist, and Marxist to hold warrant.
As cited by the think-tank Advocates for Youth: To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs, the alternative to teaching safe-sex education, have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.
(5) to (6)- Sex is evil.
Yes, and I will repeat, I AGREE WITH YOU. HOWEVER, PREGNANCY IS MORE EVIL. PREVENTING PREGNANCY PREVENTS YOUR EXTRA EVIL ABORTIONS. Do you want more babies to die…?
(7)
I did not call capitalists evil. You did not address the issue. You danced around it. rBGH causes puberty in earlier ages in females. Females can get pregnant. Pubescent females are the target audience for sex education.
(8)
Ironic that you respond to my statement with even more stereotypes and classifications… Ann Coulter's titles aren't a credible source either. She has a mental disorder.

To make this public to the entire debate.org community, I wish to challenge you on the following topic:
Resolved- Real debates are won by citing sources and not petty name-calling.
Think you can handle going Con?

Happy Holidays

The Colonel
Solarman1969

Con

Boy! you sure got defensive when I clearly pointed out where you were (1) promoting promiscuity and (2) marxism

I do appreciate that you have morals and do NOT think that either of these are good things

however your premise here is wrong

Safe sex education discourages sexual intercourse. Safe sex education teaches children, much like you intend, to not have sex.

This is NOT TRUE

the "sexual educators" take the opinion that you had LAST TIME, that you have now REVERSED upon me challenging it

here was that opinion

As I already asserted in my first round of arguments, the innocence of children has already been destroyed and should not be questioned.

This debate is an issue of how to react to their innocence already been destroyed by the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Company.

the only way childrens innocence is destroyed is by ADULTS giving them ADULT INFORMATION too early

again, I apprecaite that you see the value in what I have said and hopefully you have seen the light and will rethink your views on children sex eduication and marxian rhetoric

I will warn you of the insidous and dangerous nature of the marxists that have infused the education system and will poison your mind to the truth.

the rest of your "debate" is just confused rhetoric that simply obfuscates the main points here that I have made above- some personal attacks on me on style etc that are not useful so I will omit them

take care and good luck

cheers and happy new year
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bamadebater 9 years ago
bamadebater
I have to agree with the Cons side of the arguement but vote for the Pro because they did most of the better argueing. However, I will admit that the Cons point of not being able to know what a parent wants/does not want can not be understood until you are a parent.

On another note: Kids are always being told about sex and sexual things now. However, I agree that Elementary School is too young to start teaching kids about Sex in schools. Maybe at home...in every parents own way...but not in a school.
Posted by buckaroo54 9 years ago
buckaroo54
Wow. Demosthenes01 never judge a debate ever again. You don't judge a debate by what you agree with, you do it based on who won the round and the debate itself. Last time I checked this was called debate.org, not polls.com. There's no point in having the debate if people like you are degrading it into a populist positions contest fornicated with the ideas of advancing a particular belief and not manifested on the purpose of intellectual forums.

I voted for Kenito001 because I read the debate and voted on the DEBATE.
Posted by Demosthenes01 9 years ago
Demosthenes01
I voted for solarman not because he is a good debater, but because I just couldn't vote for kenito no matter how good he was in the debate. Even if his intentions where in the right place his idea was far off from what should be done about stopping kids from having sex at a young age.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
I still wanted him to address the facts without using "Marxism" incorrectly...
Posted by Raisor 9 years ago
Raisor
Demosthenes you are the epitome of all that is wrong with the voting on this site.

Voting for the winner of a debate round has nothing to do with what you "believe." Thats the difference between a POLL and a DEBATE BALLOT.

If you can recognize that solarman didnt put up an argument while his opponent did, you must vote for his opponent. Voting is to decide who won the debate round, not which person happened to be defending the "truth."
Posted by Demosthenes01 9 years ago
Demosthenes01
I have to admit solarman, that you didn't really put up an argument just stated points and kept stating the same thing over and over.

Although I did vote for you because I believe that schools have no right at all too be teaching anything to do with sex in classes. It is a parent's job to teach a kid what is right a wrong not a schools job. Parents just need to be more aware that its them that have to tell their kids that sex it wrong and that they shouldn't do it's not a schools job to tell a kid that sex is wrong or teach them "safe sex" most kids don't even learn what sex is until they are a teenager so even if you let schools teach "safe sex" elementary school is defiantly not the right place for it.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Solarman - a bit of advice. Actually argue, don't just make an assertion followed by "period."
Pro wins... period.
Posted by Raisor 9 years ago
Raisor
Good analysis on the Pro side, but try to be clearer with the "non-unique" arguments about children losing their innocence- I think you confused Con with this.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kenito001 8 years ago
kenito001
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1985 9 years ago
fightinirish1985
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1986 9 years ago
fightinirish1986
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bamadebater 9 years ago
bamadebater
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Stoogy 9 years ago
Stoogy
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by chrispy4 9 years ago
chrispy4
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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 
Vote Placed by cljs5 9 years ago
cljs5
kenito001Solarman1969Tied
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