Sex Education should be taught in public schools.

I think that the title basically speaks for itself as well as the definitions.

So on with my opening.

Contentions:

I. A bias free education is the right of every child, including sex education especially since virtually 100% of them will use it, even in marriage.

II. To not teach sex education would be harmful to students

III. The facts should be taught in school, morals should be taught at home because morals differ from family to family.

If I can show that all of my opponents points are invalid I win the round insofar as the fact that he has not met his burden of showing that sex education should be taught in schools.

I. A bias free education is the right of every child, including sex education especially since virtually 100% of them will use it, even in marriage.

Community needs to be bias on certain issues. If we were to teach without any unbias, we would be teaching kids to do the following:

1. How to rape
2. Why smoking is good
3. Do drugs
4. Become Anorexic
5. Surpass the brink of obesity

All these things are good from the perspective of the person doing them and under my opponents logic of teaching to an unbias standardw e would teach kids all of these things.

II. To not teach sex education would be harmful to students

Yes, thats what your supposed to argue. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TELL WHY.

III. The facts should be taught in school, morals should be taught at home because morals differ from family to family.

Some families may morally feel teaching sex education is bad.

Ok if you want to explain my points further, then I will.

I. Unbiased means teaching the facts. The various examples you posted are no facts they are clear over exaggerations.

1. How to rape
2. Why smoking is good
3. Do drugs
4. Become Anorexic
5. Surpass the brink of obesity

In cases were both sides have some valid points, such as two politicians debating about the economy or foreign policy, then that's unbiased because it is presenting facts and both points of view. In the points above, the facts about smoking, drugs, obesity, anorexia, and rape are all obviously clear - they end up hurting you one way or another; any other information given would be lies and turn from an unbiased education to propaganda. Moreover, the above examples make the implication that sex can be ranked among the list above, ranked with smoking, drugs, obesity as if it was something that can lead to a cancer or other disease. Sex is proven to be a necessary bodily function and a person actually NEEDS to have sex for their own health and to continue life. To rank sex or even imply that sex could be ranked with the above just shows how little knowledge of the subject you actually have. You also say "All these things are good from the perspective of the person doing…" I know many people who wished they didn't smoke, could control their sexual impulses, weren't addicted to drugs and are trying to quit, and want to loose weight. I will give you that anorexia is the exception.

To end, by unbiased you knew perfectly well I was talking about not drilling the Bible in schools. For to long "moral entrepreneurs" have shoved their ideas and beliefs in our faces and it needs to stay out of the classroom because then the education becomes biased. Just because they are a majority doesn't give them the right to unduly influence non-Christian students with their personal beliefs.

II. To not teach Sex Education would be harmful to students.

In a perfect world, every parent would pass on the knowledge they need to conduct safe and happy sex lives, but in reality we know this doesn't happen. Talking about sex with a child, especially your own child can be very difficult. Parents, more often than not, like to live in their bubble and think every other kids is doing it but not mine. This is what ultimately led to sex education, parents weren't teaching it and somebody had to. Here's my theory, if cavemen were able to figure out "how to do it" then two teenagers growing up in a world were sex permeates almost all of our most daily activities, from television commercials and advertisements to asking were babies come from, they will find out about sex. The problem is they will know about it, but not know everything that they need to conduct sex safely. They learn about friends who don't know what they're talking about, or inexperienced older brothers and sisters, or the occasional stranger or teacher. 2 out of 3 will give misinformation. Unless a child in forbidden from leaving the house or watching TV one way or another sex will come up, that isn't even a question, even if you put a guy and a girl on a deserted island they will figure it out. That means they need to be prepared and prepared properly. Abstinence programs have been attempted to no avail. One study done in Texas by the British Medical Journal revealed that "before the abstinence education 23% of ninth-graders have had sex, 28% did after the program was finished." Then another study by the Center for Disease Control found that those who took "virginity pledges" delayed in any sexual activity by 6 months. But after that, they discovered oral and anal sex, which are apparently still ok somehow, and didn't know a thing about the use of condoms, birth control, or any other forms of safe sex. They were also more likely to get a STD than those who had a real sex education. Eventually 88% go on to have pre-marital sex. Even the ones who remain virgins until marriage, they still eventually have sex, and just because your married doesn't mean you're safe from STDs.

Furthermore, going back to my contentions about the difference between and unbiased education and teaching the facts. According to a Washington Post study, in abstinence only education they are actually "taught"

Half the gay male teenagers in the U.S. have AIDS. (Another "fact" is that only homosexuals can get AIDS.)

Touching a persons genitals can result in pregnancy (there are other variations like oral sex, masturbation, and the like could do the same).

A forty three-day-old fetus is a "thinking person" (their brain has sometimes not even developed by this point).

AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears

Condoms fail to protect the transmission of AIDS 31% of the time – the actual number is 3% according to the Center for Disease control.

Women who have abortions are "more prone to suicide" and as many as 10% become sterile.

Just slightly biased don't you think?

Finally, a word on morals. It might be against one person's morals to teach sex education in schools, but I know for sure that that isn't everyone's morals. Because there isn't a definite majority (like 98% lets say), since there are conflicting morals, the facts should be taught at schools and the morals taught at home. The schools has no right to preach to me about sex when I and my parents would much rather I learn about safe practices instead of propaganda spread by these self-proclaimed "moral entrepreneurs."

"I. Unbiased means teaching the facts. The various examples you posted are no facts they are clear over exaggerations.

1. How to rape
2. Why smoking is good
3. Do drugs
4. Become Anorexic
5. Surpass the brink of obesity

In cases were both sides have some valid points, such as two politicians debating about the economy or foreign policy, then that's unbiased because it is presenting facts and both points of view. In the points above, the facts about smoking, drugs, obesity, anorexia, and rape are all obviously clear - they end up hurting you one way or another; any other information given would be lies and turn from an unbiased education to propaganda. Moreover, the above examples make the implication that sex can be ranked among the list above, ranked with smoking, drugs, obesity as if it was something that can lead to a cancer or other disease. Sex is proven to be a necessary bodily function and a person actually NEEDS to have sex for their own health and to continue life. To rank sex or even imply that sex could be ranked with the above just shows how little knowledge of the subject you actually have. You also say "All these things are good from the perspective of the person doing…" I know many people who wished they didn't smoke, could control their sexual impulses, weren't addicted to drugs and are trying to quit, and want to loose weight. I will give you that anorexia is the exception. "

ITS NOT CLEAR DENYING ANY INFORMATION IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS UNJUST. ADVOCATING THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

"
In a perfect world, every parent would pass on the knowledge they need to conduct safe and happy sex lives, but in reality we know this doesn't happen. Talking about sex with a child, especially your own child can be very difficult. Parents, more often than not, like to live in their bubble and think every other kids is doing it but not mine. This is what ultimately led to sex education, parents weren't teaching it and somebody had to. Here's my theory, if cavemen were able to figure out "how to do it" then two teenagers growing up in a world were sex permeates almost all of our most daily activities, from television commercials and advertisements to asking were babies come from, they will find out about sex. The problem is they will know about it, but not know everything that they need to conduct sex safely. They learn about friends who don't know what they're talking about, or inexperienced older brothers and sisters, or the occasional stranger or teacher. 2 out of 3 will give misinformation. Unless a child in forbidden from leaving the house or watching TV one way or another sex will come up, that isn't even a question, even if you put a guy and a girl on a deserted island they will figure it out. That means they need to be prepared and prepared properly. Abstinence programs have been attempted to no avail. One study done in Texas by the British Medical Journal revealed that "before the abstinence education 23% of ninth-graders have had sex, 28% did after the program was finished." Then another study by the Center for Disease Control found that those who took "virginity pledges" delayed in any sexual activity by 6 months. But after that, they discovered oral and anal sex, which are apparently still ok somehow, and didn't know a thing about the use of condoms, birth control, or any other forms of safe sex. They were also more likely to get a STD than those who had a real sex education. Eventually 88% go on to have pre-marital sex. Even the ones who remain virgins until marriage, they still eventually have sex, and just because your married doesn't mean you're safe from STDs.

Furthermore, going back to my contentions about the difference between and unbiased education and teaching the facts. According to a Washington Post study, in abstinence only education they are actually "taught"

Half the gay male teenagers in the U.S. have AIDS. (Another "fact" is that only homosexuals can get AIDS.)

Touching a persons genitals can result in pregnancy (there are other variations like oral sex, masturbation, and the like could do the same).

A forty three-day-old fetus is a "thinking person" (their brain has sometimes not even developed by this point).

AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears

Condoms fail to protect the transmission of AIDS 31% of the time – the actual number is 3% according to the Center for Disease control.

Women who have abortions are "more prone to suicide" and as many as 10% become sterile.

Just slightly biased don't you think?"

Lot of problems but teaching kids will not fix them.

"Finally, a word on morals. It might be against one person's morals to teach sex education in schools, but I know for sure that that isn't everyone's morals. Because there isn't a definite majority (like 98% lets say), since there are conflicting morals, the facts should be taught at schools and the morals taught at home. The schools has no right to preach to me about sex when I and my parents would much rather I learn about safe practices instead of propaganda spread by these self-proclaimed "moral entrepreneurs.""

Teaching exposes kids to sex which is immidietely bad.

VOTE CON

My opponent did I nice copy and paste job from my previous post then made comments and assertions with no evidence to back it up, given this, I won the previous round almost be default. His three points (if you can call them that) are as follows:

1. ITS NOT CLEAR DENYING ANY INFORMATION IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS UNJUST. ADVOCATING THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

2. Lot of problems but teaching kids will not fix them.

3. Teaching exposes kids to sex which is immidietely bad.

To counter:
1. I will not turn this into a debate about how information should be presented. We both need to keep it on target, but I want to briefly say that any "denying of information" is unjust, especially when in schools because they are actually supposed to learn about topics.

Sub point 1 – That being said. Abstinence education doesn't teach any facts. It either teach the lies I have pointed out before, or it literally teaches nothing, that's the goal of the class, to leave the students with absolutely no knowledge about the subject. But kids are curious, they learn about sex, they told that they aren't supposed to do it, then they want to do it. It would be better if they at least knew how to do it properly and safely.

2. "Lot of problems but teaching kids will not fix them." First, incase you didn't read my argument very thoroughly, these problems you are referring to are not actual problems they were lies taught if you could call it that, to children from a position of authority and trust in order to scare them away from having sex or even masturbation. Next, will it totally fix the problem, of course it won't but IT WILL reduce it. If you teach kids that condoms can help prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs then they will use them more often, if you don't teach them about it or teach them that they are ineffective then they will still have sex and it will be without the one thing that could literally save their lives. But some people would rather teach about the Bible and its lessons as an imitation to a real education and these people are killing or at least harming those who they spew this junk to, but they believe its alright because the Bible says so and it fits their morals. Well guess what, its against MY MORALS to not arm our children with every fact we can to protect them, both about sex and every other possible subject.

3. "Teaching exposes kids to sex which is immidietely bad" WARNING – things are about to get a little less civil.

Sex is bad? BAD!!!!!!!!! Who says this is bad? You, the church, the Bible. Who has the authority to judge whether something I do that is consensual, pleasurable, natural, healthy, necessary, and perfectly normal as something BAD? No body has that right; no body on the entire planet has the right to tell me what or what not to do if that action doesn't directly harm society. Does consensual sex hurt people, does it deny people property, does it intentionally kill them, is it against the law, the answer to all the above is NO IT DOESN'T. Even if a child doesn't receive and actual education on sex, what do abstinence programs do? Make kids take virginity pledges, lie to them about condoms and STDs, and homosexuality without them ever finding out what sex is, well that would be impressive but it doesn't happen. As I said before, they will be exposed to sex either through TV or finding and older brother's stash of magazines, or in school. Common sense would dictate that the best place for these kids to learn about sex is in the classroom where they could actually learn about sex so when they try it they can do it safely, but as I can see from you arguments, common sense is lacking.

My opponent argues my points argues my points but doesnt extend his own. Thus you vote...........

CON