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

Effective is indeed a relative term but I think the most practical application would be for the laws to have an equal "bang for the buck". It costs time, money and resources to outlaw something and enforce it. If more is going into it than coming out then it really isn't doing a good job at what it's intended to accomplish. Which , coming back to my point, wasn't proved in your study. "Sorry, I forgot, putting something in quotation automatically makes it true. Did you read the studies? Did you even open the links? I did. And I can tell you that they offer concrete evidence which is accepted by the highly acclaimed organizers of these scientific peer-reviewed studies as having a definitive confirmation towards my assertion. I would have really liked you to address that argument. I'm sure the voters would too. Maybe you can do so in this last round." Okay, listen closely. This is an abstract from your link no. 1. http://www.law.harvard.edu... (Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser report) 1. …attribute much of the drop in violent crime that started in 1990s to the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, which they argue resulted in the non‐birth of vast numbers of children who would have been disproportionately involved in violent crime had they existed in the 1990s… …The Lott‐Mustard studies did not address the Donohue‐Levitt thesis… 2. Lott and Mustard did account, however, for two peculiarly American phenomena which many people believed may have been responsible for the 1990s crime reduction: the dramatic increase of the United States prison population and the number of executions. The prison population in the United States tripled during this time period, jumping from approximately 100 prisoners per 100,000 in the late 1970s to more than 300 per 100,000 people in the general population in the early 1990s. 3.In addition, executions in the United States soared from approximately 5 per year in the early 1980s to more than 27 per year in the early 1990s.33 Neither of these trends is reflected in Commonwealth countries. …Although the *reason is obscured*, the undeniable result is that violent crime, and homicide in particular, has plummeted in the United States over the past 15 years …Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States' approach are the most important… See? Even the researches that you provided, accept that there is no concrete proof that stringent gun laws have a positive effect on the soaring crime rates. Now read my previous arguments and you'll understand what I was trying to make you understand. From link No. 2: http://hematite.com... …The evidence indicates that the effect varies both with a county's level of crime and its population… Link 3 http://www.fff.org... is basically just stating the facts unidimentionally, not researching into reason for the decreasing crime rate with lenient laws in America, as was done by link 1 and 2, and hence can be cast aside. Link 4 http://www.mcsm.org... is basically link 1, and has been answered. "My argument was put forth in response to your allegation that simply having laws creates a good incentive for people not to break them because they will be labeled as criminal, which is completely false and the marijuana argument proves that. Please reply to it or this debate is just going to have a whole in it." Since you insist. While assessing the effect of laws, one has to account for its… target audience. Growing Marijuana has immense profits, and is highly beneficial for the ‘money minded businessmen'. Okay? So, the target audience for that law is money minded businessmen, who probably have great power and money. Passing the law that outlaws production of marijuana is asking THEM to stop. Teenagers are more susceptible, and asking them to stop , or more adequately, asking them to *refrain* from having sex till a certain age is a completely different matter. Teenagers vs businessmen. Asking to stop production and kill huge profits vs asking to delay an act. they are two different poles and hence can't be compared. "May I ask how old this friend is? And also, may I suggest, that the condom may not have been used properly. I did after all say that the statistics applies to properly used condoms. The most common way of mis-using a condom is using one that is past it's expiration point--something that would be less likely to occur for someone who is new or relatively new to the experience, since I have shown that they tend to actually be more sexually responsible." He is 16 now, but was infected when he was 14. Most of the first time users use condom improperly. In a research done by Hatherall and colleagues(link), 6% of the kids (who had reported that they used a condom the last time they had sex) said they put the condom on after vaginal penetration -- and 6% said they continued vaginal penetration after condom removal. nearly a third of the kids put condoms on too late at least one time during the six-month diary period. And nearly one in 10 took them off too soon. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.condomman.com... and a rather interesting query: http://www.healthexpertadvice.org... who would have guessed? "Not in Bangladesh, not in Argentina, Bolivia, Columbia, Singapore, Ecuador, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Indonesia, need I go on?" Oh, goodness, I just realized that we never clarified whether this was the United States or the world. It was actually my intention for this debate to be about American laws. I apologize for my Americanized mind-set which often forgets that America isn't planet Earth. However, it should be pointed out that 60% of the Earth's population live in countries where prostitution is illegal. So, as a generality, prostitution is illegal in the world. [1] That doesn't make any sense. 40% of the countries don't have any identity? //Positive effect of laws in Bexar: http://www.sanantonio.gov.........// "In-fact, the study makes absolutely no assertion at all about how the change in levels occur, it only describes that they do and by what nature. [2] " Since this was immediately after the time Bexar implemented laws, I would have thought that the correlation was clear. I apologize for not explaining the link, I didn't know it was necessary. I enjoyed this debate too, and would hope that the voters read the entire debate and vote right.