CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should gov't funded Catholic and non-denom schools teach sex-ed the same way
In Canada there are government funded public schools that are considered Roman Catholic as well as non-denominational
In Ontario, the Catholic schools want to teach a separate sex education curriculum. Should they have to teach it in the same way as non-denominational schools?
My concern is that these schools will promote it over safe sex practices, or give a distorted image that makes it appear that safe sex isn't safe at all.
First off, the question in the name of the debate contradicts he question in it's description so I'm assuming you meant yes or no to the title.
-
In that case, sex education should be taught the same everywhere. I don't care if it's a catholic school, using that as leverage just underminds the importance of sex education.
Government funded public schools have to teach it. Just because they are schools of religion doesn't mean the students their aren't having sex. They need to talk about safe sex while promoting abstinence.
You fail at argumentation. I don't have to attend a catholic public school to start a debate and have an opinion regarding the topic -> should gov't funded catholic schools and other schools should have to teach sex ed the same way.
Do you have an opinion on life after death? Have you experienced the death penalty? Are NFL athletes overpaid? Should celebrities have private lives?
I don't have to attend a catholic public school to start a debate and have an opinion regarding the topic
I have never attended a religious private school, however I know that within the schools they host prayer services, most of the time have a church at the school.
However you posted a disposition to my argument, suggesting what already exists. Making me assume that you lack general knowledge on the subject you were questioning in the first place.
Do you have an opinion on life after death? Have you experienced the death penalty? Are NFL athletes overpaid? Should celebrities have private lives?
Those are debates I have made, and I have general knowledge on all of those topics. What's your point?
Your debate asked me a question in which I answered, you disputed my answer and when I replied your response was that you were joking. So I made a response saying I was joking. Now it appears that we are both joking, however I have no idea anymore.
Are Catholic girls just as able to get pregnant as non-Catholic girls? Are Catholic boys just as able to impregnate girls as non-Catholic boys? Yes? Then teach them some sex ed. The United States has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy among all first world countries because we think that "abstinence only sex ed" will actually work (which is what Catholic schools teach).
How does the sexual education between one and the other differ? The debate title expressly states '...teach the same sex-ed curriculum'. Not, 'should they teach any sex-ed'!
If they are independent of the public schools, they should not be bound by the same restrictions as public schools.
I did not say, nor do I believe in, abstinence-only sexual education.
They should be bound by the same restrictions, or at least held up to the same standards! I go to a Christian school right now, and the only "sex-ed" that is being taught is abstinence! This is a legitimate problem, and one that needs to be fixed.
But a Catholic school should not be held to the same restrictions as public schools. If there were forced to teach the precise same curricula, there would be no purpose in going to a Catholic school rather than a public school.
That's the point, Abstinence only education doesn't work. One is entitled to their own beliefs up until the point that it begins harming people. Something as obviously harmful as higher rates of teenage pregnancy (the direct result of abstinence only sex education) is a problem.
I'm not talking about teaching the exact same curricula. I'm saying that when it comes to something as important as sex ed, they should be held to a high standard.
So you except the Catholic Church - a highly reverent and ritualistic church at that - to completely disregard their dogma when teaching their young Catholics?
I'm saying it'd be irresponsible for the catholic church to not give their kids proper sex education. Like I said before, people are entitled to their own beliefs up until the point that it begins harming other people.
Also, this is not about the viability of teaching sex-ed properly, it's "Should gov't funded blah blah blah..."
Just how exactly does it harm people? Sure it may spread AIDS and other STDs; but, even if they are taught the same sex-ed as public schools, only 27% of teenage females choose the condom as a form of contraception.
First off, right after saying "How exactly does it harm people," you concede that it helps to spread AIDS and other STDs. If you don't consider that harmful, I don't know what you do consider to be harmful.
Do some research. Studies show that people that do abstinence only sex-ed are 10% less likely to use a condom when having sex. It also attaches a social stigma to sex.
There's a definite correlation between our high rate of abstinence only sex-ed and the fact that we're the #1 first world country in terms of teenage pregnancy.
People will get AIDS however they are taught! As I said, only 27% of teenage females chose the male condom. Whether or not they are taught to use it in schools, most of them aren't.
I'm not saying that a teenage mom is bad in and of itself, I'm saying that people should be taught methods of contraception so that they are well-informed enough to make the decision of whether or not they want to be a teenage mom.
Teenage pregnancy is bad because it destroys whatever plans you had before you became pregnant. You can get pregnant after you complete highschool, or complete college, or do whatever you want when you're young. But once you crap that kid out, your previous life is destroyed, and whatever hopes and dreams you had beforehand die with it. That's not to say the teenage mom isn't happy, I'm sure she is, but she could get that same happiness after she had completed all those other hopes and dreams if she had used contraception methods.
People will get AIDS how ever their taught, so we should just not care about teaching them in schools? Good point! You know... people are gonna die eventually, so why not just make murder legal? See the flaw in that logic?
Maybe, instead of saying "Blah, they'll just have sex without condoms anyway!", we should promote the usage of condoms!
Also, where are you getting your numbers? Only 27%? I find that hard to believe.
What do plans matter? They matter a lot! I mean, maybe you've never had any hopes or dreams other than alienating people and acting like a douche on some low-traffic debating website, but most people find that fulfilling dreams and having plans makes life worth living (or at least better).
To quote your own source: "Other findings were that those in Abstinence programs were slightly more informed about and less likely to see condoms as protective against sexually transmitted diseases" So, according to your source, Abstinence programs are harmful.
Believe it or not, I've had dreams. I do, however, greatly enjoy alienating people and I greatly enjoy being what you and others would think of as a 'prick'. That 'prick' attitude is the 'me' in TERMINATOR, my user.
I admitted that they are harmful! However, they are not so much more harmful that the church be required by law to teach against it's own dogma.
I know that it happens, but that goes against their beliefs. I believe that if the parents think their children will go out and have sex, then they should get classes on their own time.
Screw their beliefs! If there's something as significant as sex-ed that's getting ignored because it conflicts with someone's beliefs, then there's a major problem. I personally care more about making sure that people don't accidentally get pregnant than respecting their beliefs.
If the parents feel that their children need the extra education, then it should be up to them to get it. No matter if they know or not, it should be their job to get it.
