Laws Inplace Which Prohibit Sex Among Teens do a Good Job at Reducing the Amount of Teens Having Sex

"No, no, no. My job here is not to show that there would be less teen sex if the laws were repealed, it's just that the laws do not do a very effective job towards their intended ends." That would beg the definition of ‘effective'. I took it to mean, yes, there would be people who would not follow the law, but overall, it would indeed lower the amount of sex occurring in the state. So if you provided a data stating that X% people at the age of 16 are losing their virginity. So what? What do we compare it with? I remember writing in the beginning of the debate: "And we are arguing on the resolution that the laws in place which prohibit sex among teens do a good job at the amount of sex the teens do- AS OPPOSED TO A SITUATION WHERE LAWS WOULD NOT BE THERE." "Again, this debate is not about whether or not we should have age of consent laws." ??? If the laws are effective, we should have laws. Laws are effective because they provide a universal age at which IF you lose virginity, there is no social stigma. Makes it easier. Children who are not so sure, (Why am I repeating everything I say again and again?) will be affected by the legal provision. Which means that the amount lowers. AND as I said in the para, if laws were not there, the situation could pressurize some teens into doing things they wouldn't normally do, which would actually increase the amount, pointing that laws help to lower the amount. "[1] Harvard Law School study [2] University of Chicago study [3] Future of Freedom Foundation sites studies and statistics [4] CFIF compilation of worldwide data" OH my god!? Are you seriously trying to cut my sentences short and replying to the part which was actually PROVED? I replied to the whole argument WITH sources, and you just wrote the argument and inserted exclamation mark. I said that the *studies* are Wrong, and they provide wrong results because - and I quote- "…any change in crime rate induced by concealed handgun laws will depend on demographic, social, and economic specifities of the observation units. So these laws might lead to increases in crime in some jurisdictions and decreases in others. THE RESULTS THAT ASSUME THAT THE EFFECTS ARE IDENTICAL ACROSS ALL COUNTRIES, ARE THEREFORE, INVALID." Quote end. (Sources: http://hsx.sagepub.com...... http://113.212.161.150/elibrary/Library/Law_Economic/Rubin_The.pdf) Please don't resort to this. "Yeah...anyway...lets not turn this into a gun-control debate. Trust me, you'd lose." With the tricks you have, clearly. (note: sarcasm) "Gun-control laws do the opposite of what they intend. You tried to refute this, you failed." Uh huh… keep it coming… "And even though you said I had fail sources, you didn't even address my marijuana argument. Possibly because you know you can't refute it. You should have known that about my gun-control argument. " It's funny to see how smug you sound. "Face it, laws don't always do what they intend and can even do the opposite. The laws of man are not laws of nature, they are far from well-tuned and inherent principles. " You know what, I never even thought of providing examples to support my side, possibly because it is so obvious. However: Law of driving on the right side of the road: Success. Law of filing a divorce: Success Domestic Violence Act: Success What does all this prove? Nothing. Same way your marijuana argument proved nothing. And that's why I didn't reply to it. "Now, I've done my part, whether you recognize it or not I hope the voters will" Sure they will. "Are you serious?...Are you seriously serious? Not only are you straying off course, AGAIN, but you fail in doing it, AGAIN." HOW in the Name of God is this of course? I say that ‘a scared girl doing it for the first time will consider if the act is illegal'. You say ‘there's a thing called protection'. I say that ‘it is not foolproof'. And I'm straying off-course. Wow. "When a male condom is used properly it has a 97% effectiveness rate at preventing pregnancy and 99.9% effectiveness at preventing HIV. [5,6] On top of this, birth-control pills are 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy.[7] When used in combination it would be more likely for someone to have a heart-attack result from sex than pregnancy." I'll tell that to my friend who found himself infected with AIDS, AFTER using a condom. Guess some people do fall into that 3% category. And my point of making that assertion was – till someone is afraid- laws will matter. "An interesting...and baffling assertion you make there. I'll let the voters be the judge of that." Okay. "Second, when you imply that the minors are having less an opportunity to have sex than adults because they can't buy it you would be implying that if they were allowed then both teens and adults would have more equal opportunity. That simply isn't so. I argue that teens naturally have a heightened opportunity for sexual interactions mostly due to their increased drive for the like and also the fact that most attend a public school atmosphere which would render more opportunity than, say, ... a job atmosphere." Actually, I meant prostitution. "Selling sex is called prostitution...and that's illegal for adults too." Not in Bangladesh, not in Argentina, Bolivia, Columbia, Singapore, Ecuador, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Indonesia, need I go on? Positive effect of laws in Bexar: http://www.sanantonio.gov... Sources: http://prostitution.procon.org... http://www.helium.com... http://www.avert.org...