Comprehensive Sex Education

I will be rebutting Pro’s case from R2, and if there are enough characters left, I shall defend my case. Rebuttal #1 “Do schools have the right to teach about sex? Should they? ” My opponent states “Teaching CSE provides information that directly relates to the lives, health and safety of sexually active teens, as well as prepares the other half so they will be better equipped to understand the consequences and options. ” Teachers do in fact have the right to teach students about sex education. But, as I have argued, are teachers actually qualified to teach about sex? As I had stated in my round, a lot of teachers feel it’s not their place to teach other people kids about sex, nor are they very knowledgeable themselves on the topic. [1] “Four in five teachers said they did not feel adequately trained and confident to broach the sensitive topic with pupils, while half admitted it is "difficult to discuss". There were also concerns that religious faith could be denying children access to a proper sex education, with six out of ten teachers claiming that discussing sex, relationships and lifestyle choices "can go against religious beliefs". Who is to blame, if a kid goes out, and has sex, but ends up pregnant, or obtains some STD, yet they were taught sex ed in middle school, and the child thought they had taken the necessary precautions before having sex? Who says if a teacher is under-qualified to teach such a personal subject? The teacher themselves will not truly know if they’re uncomfortable until they are actually in the moment of teaching, and answering questions from students. [1] “More than nine in ten parents said it was "very important" for their children to be properly informed on safe sex and contraception, but only a fifth of teachers felt capable of doing so. ” We should not force teachers to teach a subject that is not actually required to be taught in all schools. If we force a teacher to teach sex ed, what is he/se gives wrong advice to a student, because they’re unknowledgeable, or embarrassed, then whose fault is it? Rebuttal #2 “What if parents think the topic is inappropriate? ” This goes back to my argument in rebuttal #1. We can’t and shouldn’t force teachers to teach a subject they are uncomfortable with. Especially when 18 of 21 states don’t require there sex teachings to be 100% accurate. [2] “According to a March 2012 report released by the National Conference of State Legislators, only 21 states and the District of Columbia require schools to teach sex education. And, in a finding that should jolt parents and teachers out of their chairs, only 18 states require that the information be medically accurate. ” Sure, parents may keep their child from going to this particular class, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is the flaws, and mistakes that are being shown, and made by the teachers that are teaching the topic. Maybe it is for the best that children be kept home, instead of going to this particular class, where parents expect their children to be taught correctly, and not use un-reliable, misleading facts. [2] "Lessons on reproductive anatomy and basic functioning were often incomplete and pervasive factual limitations reflected gender stereotypes and heterocentric bias. " The survey also found explicit moral overtones regarding sexuality, the value of abstinence, teen pregnancy and family life in many of the curricula. ” If we take a step back, and look at the bigger teacher, we will see that keeping some kids from going to the class, and letting others take the class is completely unfair, considering that many of these classes are flawed, and the children who actually take these classes will be effected in the most negative way, in the long run. I will not rebut my opponents case on why comprehensive should be taught over abstinence, because from my arguments, and sources, I have proved that comprehensive is just as ineffective then abstinence. Thusly, I am merely arguing sex edu. No t be taught in schools, because both comprehensive, and abstinence are ineffective, and parent’s should instead teach their children on the topic. DEFENDING MY CASE: On teachers obligation: Pro states “Con argues that because we cannot be sure teachers are teaching sex ed effectively, we should drop it. By that logic, why teach math, science, English or any other subject? ” Teachers who teach in high school, generally teach one subject, that they are trained in. [3] “However, if you teach high school, you are more likely to be instructing a single subject and should therefore have a much deeper understanding of that field. ” Because I said teachers are not qualified, or knowledgeable on sex education, my opponent tries to argue that teachers aren’t qualified in teaching Math, English, or any other subjects. Yet, as I have proven, High school teachers are trained on the subject, and then share that knowledge with their students. It’s a subject they have been trained on, and studied, you can’t say the say about sex education, which my opponent has failed to do. On Comprehension being ineffective. Pro states “My opponent will not be able to prove that parents will teach their children everything they should know about sex, or that by bringing the topic of sex up in school will somehow promote sex. History shows that young people have been having sex since they've reached puberty since the beginning of humanity. ” As I have argued multiple times, many teachers expressed their feelings towards teaching sex ed, such as, themselves feeling unknowledgeable, and un-informed, and embarrassed. To win this argument, my opponent must prove that teachers are more qualified to teach sex edu, than parents are. I myself, have already won this argument, by giving a source, that goes to medically correct. show “only 18 states require that the information be medically accurate” If their curriculum and programs are inaccurate, mistakes will be made when teens have sex. So, it is inaccurate to say, that all teachings of comprehensive sex in schools are accurate, when only 18 states require the information to be taught, to be medically correct, which then ties into my rebuttal on money. Why should we fund a program, when most of them aren't teaching children material that is medically correct? We shouldn't have to spend $2million a year, on false teachings, when parent's are just as capable as teaching their children. As for the immorality portion, I did not just say parent's are uncomfrtable with the exercises, but also children. My opponent then goes to make a sensless, comparisson between Gluten, and Sex. Sex should not be taught at such a young age, because kids will become curious, and want to try things, which will take their focus off of school, wheras Gluten doesn't have the same effect, unless you have some. .. wierd fetish. Conclusion: Pro has failed to show us why parent's are uncapable of teaching their children sex education at home. I argued that sex edu is a waste of money because 1. it's innefective and 2. parents are just as capable of teaching their own children. I have also show that onlt 18 out of 21 states are required for their teachings to be medically correct. Why would we fund programs, that aren't even teaching a program correctly? This is how mistakes are made. Parent's are just as, if not, more capable of teaching their own children. Vote Con! Sources: [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] . http://www.truth-out.org... [3]. http://teach.com...