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.
Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbringing and this is primarily carried out through the school system. The costs and social impact of unsafe sexual practices that result in STDs and teen pregnancy are carried by society as a whole, not just the parents of those involved. So education about safe sex is entirely justifiable. In any case, many parents do not feel able to talk to their children about sex, leaving them in a dangerous state of ignorance.
Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all schools promote safe sex and a few schools don’t even give sexual education, so is it right to say that the amount of STDs amongst teenagers and pregnant teens is due to the promotion of safe sex? It might also be good to consider that the amount of pregnant teens and teens with STDs are due to lack of information given to all teenagers in the whole nation. After all, the Netherlands, famous for its very frank sex education, has both a higher age of first sexual experience, and much lower rates of teenage pregnancy and STD infection than countries such as the USA and the UK. And research shows that abstinence education often fails – inevitably many teens who sign chastity pledges do end up having sex, and because they have not been taught about safe sex methods, they are much more likely to become pregnant or infected as a result.
We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ever – a development which preceded widespread sex education and which cannot therefore be blamed on it. Keeping children in ignorance about sex will not stop them having sex, but it will mean that the sex they have is riskier, resulting in unplanned pregnancies, abortions and STD infections. Condoms, while not perfect, are widely recommended for the prevention of STDs. They have been shown to be effective in reducing infection rates in both men and women. So it is important to make the idea of safe sex more attractive to these teenagers to prevent STDs and for teens to get pregnant. This is why at schools teenagers should be told and encouraged to use condoms if they are going to have sex.
It isn’t the place of schools to sexualize our children in this way. Many people believe that sex education should be left to parents, who are best placed to decide what information their children need and when the best time to tell them is. Even if human reproduction has a place in the biology classroom, that is very different from courses of “safe sex” education that promote promiscuity in a way that often undermines the values parents are seeking to impart at home.
one problem with this theory. It seems these days parents are NOT capable of properly teaching their children about sex. Schools are for education and preparing our children for life out in the real World as adults! Many parents are too embarrassed or not knowledgable enough to teach their children about sex or relationships with the oppostie sex period!
Instead of continuing with the promotion of safe sex, why don’t schools just give teenagers sexual education and tell them about the options like condoms and pills, instead of actively promoting them and making them every time more and more attractive to use? Shouldn’t they be promoting the best and most secure options? The best way to prevent STDs and pregnant teens is ABSTINENCE. So why don’t schools start by promoting that? Not strictly abstinence until marriage, but just abstinence. If students wait at least until their bodies are done developing fully and until they are not in puberty, the amount of STDs will be reduced dramatically, not only because the human body is better developed for sex at an older age, but also because we are more mature when we are in any kind of relationship.
The truth is parents are the biggest influence on a child's sex choices. Whether the parent teaches it or not, weather the parent is comfortable with sex or not, even if they learn about it in school later. The first, best and main teacher about sex in a persons life is what they observe from their parents.
I think that we as a society are perfectly capable of informing our children about sex . The school system should spend its money on other things and stop worrying about what the "common people" are teaching or not teaching their offspring.
For most people, their peers are the biggest influence.
For example, most men would gladly have multiple girlfriends if the women in their lives would make it easy.
This is irregardless of parenting and actually results from finally tuned biological drives.
Sex is natural, so far society and parents have, more or less, attempted to teach that it is something else.
Simply put, you can't beat nature. Sex is a science, especially safe sex; it needs to be studied the same as basic math.
Like basic math, it permeates though most activities of your life and it is something in need of conscious, intellectual understanding due to it being so wide spread.
From where does morality concerning sex come from?
Does it comes from peers preaching it?
At least most if not all of our ideology about sex comes directly from our peers, or indirectly though experiences shared with them.
Our biological drives are realized though environmental realities.
The biological drive is a constant, its effect depends on your peers.
ugh, I'll be less concise.
Knowing yourself and others is important(or if you'll rather, knowing yourself and others has its benefits), studying emotions is a major part of this important task, and part of that is studying sex.
One can employ science in both the mechanics, economical and psychological aspects.
That is irrelevant, though it does of course rely entirely upon what one's definition of sex is.
The salient issue is whether peers are the greatest influence on (and pardon the rudeness of the quoted specimen) "sex choices".
I asked you to demonstrate that it is so.
From where does morality concerning sex come from?
Does morality play a supreme role in the sexuality of young people?
At least most if not all of our ideology about sex comes directly from our peers, or indirectly though experiences shared with them.
Again, sir, it is upon you to demonstrate this, logically or otherwise.
Though it may be a moot point. As we are discussing specifically the sexuality of young people, it must first be demonstrated that external influences are more important than biological ones.
Our biological drives are realized though environmental realities.
We experience great difficulty in parsing this phrase. It is our conclusion that your meaning is "the expression of biological impulses is limited by an organism's environment", or something similar.
Surely, no notion is more inconsistent with the phrase "Simply put, you can't beat nature"?
Two inferences are apparent to us. Either you suggest that our sexual behaviour is dictated first by biology and then by environment, or, as is equally patent in your argument, that the reverse is the case.
Please enlighten us, and take care to explain exactly how either case is relevant to a moral discussion.
Knowing yourself and others is important(or if you'll rather, knowing yourself and others has its benefits), studying emotions is a major part of this important task, and part of that is studying sex.
We do not presume to indicate that studying something, and participating in it, are two entirely separate things that should not be confused.
One can employ science in both the mechanics, economical and psychological aspects.
It does depend on what you consider sex. It is relevant because it defines from where and how experience about sex comes from, it determines your sex options. Certainly sex choices depend on sex options, and the options are your peers.
Morality determines how sex occurs, or at least how it is portrayed to occur.
It influences partners, frequency, and most importantly the access of information to the public of various sex practices.
For example, when homosexuality was/is considered wrong it causes there to be less sources willing to openly distribute information about homosexual safe sex, which influences whether sex is done safely or not.
If all our sexual experiences are from our peers, then all ideology gained from experience comes indirectly from our peers.
If our morality is a synergistic result of life experiences, and if most of our life experiences are experiences of our peers, then again our morality mainly comes from our peers.
A biological drive, hunger(and it's type) and the availability of various foods determine eating habits.
Like wise: A biological drive to have sex, its type, and the availability of those whom you can have sex with determine sexual habits. To teach someone to not have sex or sexual relations. is akin to teaching someone to not eat. To ignore their biological drives and not teach them about it, will not eliminate the biological drive. Similar to how people will steal food to fulfill their hunger, they will go against sexual norms to fulfill their sex drive. If sex is taboo, its like making eating taboo. It simply doesn't work, and a "black market" or network of secret socially unacceptable behavior or relationships will develop the same as a gang or mafia will in some poor neighborhoods in need of food. Information accessibility will suffer, prices will be higher, etc.
It is relevant because it defines from where and how experience about sex comes from, it determines your sex options. Certainly sex choices depend on sex options, and the options are your peers.
All entirely irrelevant if one's biology decrees that one is an asexual. Or a homosexual without access to other homosexuals and so on. In this discussion, sir, we cannot impose as many limits upon the premise as we may wish to. We must therefore be specific in our parameters.
It is patent that we are to assume that sexual partners are available, else the entire discussion is moot, due to education having no possible impact whatever.
So, we shall summarise the premise in its specified entirety:
"When eligible mates of each variety is available, it is one's biology that has the chief influence upon which of that body one elects to mate with, or in the case of homosexuals and persons not desirous of offspring, to fornicate with".
In addition to which, we were never discussing the physical necessity of an eligible mate being present. It was implied by your words that you had meant that peers influence one's choices through coercion and persuasion and not by their being present to copulate with. If we propose to embark on such a pedantic route, we may safely say that solar radiation's influence on animate molecular structures is the greatest influence on sexuality, but we are not wont to making Argumentum reductio ad absurdum.
Morality determines how sex occurs, or at least how it is portrayed to occur.
No, sir, sexual morality is one person or a group of persons' arbitrarily conceived view as to what the correct approach to sex is. If morality is as powerful and commanding as you imply, then the discussion is, again, moot. I can only infer from your perseverance in the argument that you do not believe the discussion to be moot, and you must therefore acknowledge this.
In fact, you seem to imply in the latter half of your sentence that you do indeed acknowledge it.
It influences partners, frequency, and most importantly the access of information to the public of various sex practices.
We shall be more specific. Morality is either constructed by reasoning for oneself, or adopted from the reasoning of another. Thus far we agree. Where our opinions diverge is the significance of orthodox morality to adolescent persons.
For example, when homosexuality was/is considered wrong it causes there to be less sources willing to openly distribute information about homosexual safe sex, which influences whether sex is done safely or not.
The logic of the above surmise is tolerable, but there is equally tolerable logic against it. As it is relevant only in the context of venereal disease, it is difficult to find any modern examples.
But that's really an argument in favour of education's greater impact.
If all our sexual experiences are from our peers, then all ideology gained from experience comes indirectly from our peers.
"Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculation... may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be."
The presence of sexual partners is not the same as sexual partners being available. Availability is influenced not only by presence, biology and matching biological drives, but matching or non-exclusive social drives as well. The drives, biology, presence etc of others all are properties of your peers. When we speak of them, we speak of peers.
Is it impossible for a straight women to fornicate with another straight women, in order to please a man for example?If not, what would appear as bi-sexuality would just be an application of her heterosexuality. Alternatively a homosexual man may start a family to hide his homosexuality if society doesn't accept it. Sexuality, a biologically drive, can't be used to determine with certainty what type of person will be chosen to mate or fornicate with. These actions against biological drives are taken not because of biology, but because of our relationships with our peers. If biology is the greater influence over peers, it can't be by much or else peers couldn't override our biological drives. So either the two drives are roughly equal, or peers are the greater influence.
Orthodox morality may not have much of a influence, but morality does. Orthodox morality tends to be morality for other people, it is what we expect from others because it is in our self-interest for them to behave as such but it is against a person's own interest for them to behave as such. Those aware of this either abandon orthodox morality, or they feel there is something wrong with them,try and generally fail to live by orthodox morality. Orthodox morality is attempted to live up to due to a reliance on the group or fear of punishment for not doing such. Most people, if not all people, simply don't have a orthodox morality as their own; even if they think they should. Morality, as in the morality people actually have, is a set of rules derived at though living, which aim to improve living standards for the individual. Orthodox morality, are rules the group tries to enforce on itself and results from the interaction of the group members. Teaching orthodox morality in sex education classes isn't going to be effective, but teaching in line with people's natural morality should be. This natural morality is developed in a society with in the context of peer group norms and peer relationships, Peers tend to be the group spent the greatest amount of time around for students going though puberty, and though the near continual holding of these relationships and norms students adapt to them over time.
When sex in general is considered wrong, it makes knowledge about effective contraceptive use less wide spread; making unwanted pregnancies more common. (More tolerable?)
Education occurs beyond the class room as well as in it.
As mentioned earlier much is learned from our peers.
:) I like that quote, I've been wanting to read the book for awhile.Any ways, what would be counted as sexual experiences had by someone below an age limit with someone above an age limit are not considered legitimate sexual experiences but rather rape or molestation. Those students below the age limit constitute a peer group. Thus all legitimate sexual experience comes from those within a student's peer group. Which turns my romance into non-fiction, eh? unless you want to get hanged up on the hypothesis not including an adjective.
I go to a high school where safe sex education is not taught, and there hasn't been a single pregnancy in the 50 year history of the school. Yes, sex should be expected during pubescent years, however it has practically become common knowledge even at a younger age that condoms should be used when having sex. Those completely ignorant of this are probably much less likely to have pubescent sex anyway. Schools simply should not need to teach this. Use this 'extra' time on math, science, and other useful subjects.
The character of a school is not the character of its students.
Unless the school's "character" includes forcing students to undergo certain operations, I don't see how its "character" prevents unsafe sex. Also, A taboo subject, like what sex appears to be in your school by how it is described, is likely to lead to secrets.
Knowledge about something or interest in something doesn't mean you want to experience that something.
For example, most people are interested in various accidents; such as car wrecks. Knowledge about car wrecks and interest in them(like in how they happen and such) doesn't mean you want to be in one.
