CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes.

It is indeed a shame that too many debates end in full forfeits and a waste of time. Overview[Rebuttal 7]* Primary School kids are unable to understand homophobia[Rebuttal 8] CHIPS as a major part of the timetable[Final Words] Main flaws in my opponents’ argumentation*still ongoing numbering, despite me messing it up in Round 3Rebuttal[R7] Primary School kids are unable to understand homophobiaCon’s last stand is the claim that PS kids are just not able to understand and profit from anti-homophobia-lessons. I already pointed out that those who are able to bully should learn why not to bully, but let’s back this up. A report from an anti-homophobia-bullying-counsellor pointed out that about 76% of the primary school children already had knowledge what “being gay” meant and about 75% of all students experienced homophobic language on a daily basis {9}. An education. com article about the mental abilities of children shows that kids are absolutely able to understand transductive reasoning: He has to mothers, he is different. He is different, that is okay. The article also pointed out the importance of transitional objects that help us deal with situations that are uncomfortable for us {10}. Stories like the one with the cockerel or the striped horse can be such transitional objects. We can therefore conclude that Primary School children in most cases already know about homophobia and are also, if sensitively approached, able to understand why it’s wrong. Cons critique that the lessons would be more effective later becomes vague considering that this basically means to wait till the kids developed a full-blooded homophobia. With 81% of PS kids recognizing “gay” as a word of insult {11} this is likely to happen. [R8] CHIPS as a major part of the timetableCon treats (and overdramatizes) CHIPS as if it would get a fixed spot in a kids timetable, being treated equally such as learning to write or read. This is not the case. CHIPS lessons can (and are intended to) be handled as non-regular projects in a context such as picknicks or outside-activity {4}. Anti-Bullying lessons are not equal to learning hard skills but it can be a playful alternative to other games and projects that are a necessary balance to sitting and writing, which again, are important for Primary School children to learn soft skills of how to get along with each other. Sources{9} . http://www.theguardian.com... {10} www. education. com/reference/article/development-mental-abilities-children/? page=2{11} . http://news.bbc.co.uk...Final WordsI’ll close this debate by pointing out where Con in my eyes severely wakened his point during this debate:Round 2: despite saying that he will be “replying to all those points” he never presented a rebuttal to Round 2 Rebuttal 2 for CHIPS is sexual education. Round 2 – 4: Con repeatedly claimed that homosexuality is a personal choice without providing prove on this matter. The following arguments rely on that claim and are (to me) invalid considering the lack of proof for his base claim: that CHIPS can (1) promote homosexuality and enforce that lifestyle on children, which will make them (2) bullying victims and (3) suicide endangered. Round 4: As the Argument “too young” has been brought up before I’ll leave it to the judges to decide, but as this (by Con’s rule had to be) rebuttal, never tackled any of my points directly, I am not sure if this is even a proper Rebuttal. Leaving basically all my Round 3 Arguments and Rebuttals unrefuted. Round 1 – 4: Con’s sources lack all numbering and in-text-reference. Especially in round four I can’t consider any of the sources as relevant, because they have not been linked to the parts they are intended to support. Round 1 – 4: Con has neither numbered nor listed his core arguments making it extremely hard to deal with his points and mostly unstructured argumentation. That it took till Round 3-4 to come to the core point of his argumentation is what I consider a failure caused by Con.