Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in adolescent sex education classes.

BOP: The first thing you'll notice on my opponent's case is the lack of any. In this debate, accepting either side means defending a specific way of teaching sex education, meaning that both sides have a burden of proof of showing that one way is better than another. My opponent in this round only provides a rebuttal against my case but no defense of abstinence-only education: no data proving it is better, no arguments why it is better. Essentially, I'm already winning the argumentation point by default. Because my opponent provides no case, this round will only focus on the defense of my own.[PRO Case]Sub-point 1a: My opponent makes a strawman. In no way did I assert that teenage sex should be encouraged. In no way did I assert that teenage sex is morally or practically correct. In no way did I assert that there are no benefits to abstinence. Judges, if you look back into my Contention 3 and the rest of my case, I've explained that while comprehensive sex education capitalizes on abstinence, it's more practical than abstinence-only because it accounts the fact that teenage sex is not eradicable. This is why information about contraceptives is provided--so the problems that might come from the sex itself is deterred. This makes comprehensive more practical and efficient than abstinence-only. In fact, my evidence has also shown that comprehensive sex education is more effective at promoting abstinence anyway, so if abstinence is what my opponent makes paramount in the scope of this debate, comprehensive sex education is better at achieving it anyways. My opponent's analogy to driving is a false one because speeding and other traffic violations are much easier to deter, making it impractical to show teenagers how to run red lights or cut people off. Furthermore, while teenage sex can cause many problems, traffic violations can cause immediate harm and are much riskier, so it's not comparable. Sub-point 1b: My opponent once again makes a strawman. He assumes that I'm trying to say that peer pressure makes thinks correct, which is not at all my point. Children can give into peer pressure; not all of them, mind you, but at the point where even one child is susceptible to it shows us that teenage sex is impossible to eradicate. Contention 1: My opponent mistakenly assumes that comprehensive sex education doesn't try to capitalize on abstinence. As I've explained in my Contention 3, comprehensive sex education does promote that abstinence is 100% effective at preventing these problems. In fact, if you look through Contention 3 again, you'll see that comprehensive sex education actually deters sex better than abstinence only. I wasn't able to add this in, but in Evidence 6, the judges can read a comprehensive report analyzing several studies on the matter, and what is reported is that abstinence-only education has no proof of ever working. My Evidence 5 says the exact same thing. However, while comprehensive sex education is effective, the conductors recognize that it's not 100% effective. While, again, the point of my case is not to any way promote teen sex, the real problem that both comprehensive and abstinence-only are trying to solve in a practical lens is teen pregnancy and HIV transmission. Because comprehensive recognizes that it will never be eradicated (and my opponent himself agrees it can never be eradicated), it provides a "Plan B" in order to deter. Again, as I've shown you with my evidence, it's effective at doing so. Contention 2: This rebuttal is another strawman. I said that teenage sex is always going to happen. I never said that all teenagers are going to have sex regardless during the relative time of the current age. If I did, I'd be contradicting myself because my evidence points out that there's even a chunk of adolescents who practice abstinence. This doesn't erase the fact that the other chunk engages in sexual activity, and in many occassions, the reasons why they're not able to prevent teen pregnancy or HIV transmission is because they have no clue about how contraceptives work. Abstinence-only cannot solve for this because it doesn't teach about contraceptives. The crux of abstinence-only is that it assumes that by only teaching abstinence and telling kids about all the bad things that could happen, it will promote abstinence in all teenagers. However, this is far from the truth. Sub-point 3a: Another strawman. The point of this sub-point wasn't to prove that teenagers are more accepting, but that comprehensive is effective at inspiring abstinence. Whether or not teenagers are more accepting, the bottom line is that comprehensive WORKS. Sub-point 3b: Another strawman. I'm not saying that practicing abstinence makes you unintelligent. In fact, I would argue that those who do are actually very wise. I'm saying that abstinence-only is ineffective at reaching abstinence or the resolution to the problems that come with teen sex. Contention 3: Comprehensive teaches the exact same thing. The problem here is that my opponent is bringing a morality lens into a practicality debate. Excuse my more or less humorous allusion, but if anyone's seen the commercial for 21st Century Insurance, there's a commercial that says: "Car insurance isn't sexy. It's practical." It's sort of the same thing for sex education. It's not meant to be moral, appeasing, or "sexy." It's supposed to be practical. If we're looking at a moral sense, perhaps my opponent is right (depending on your scope of morality). However, even if we should compromise morality, we shouldn't compromise practicality in the name of something that wasn't meant to be moral in the first place. Abstinence-only isn't practical, and everything in my Contention leads toward that conclusion.[Conclusion]I was not in any way offended by anything my opponent said. If the judges are in any way considering providing the conduct point to me, please understand that it shouldn't be done because my opponent was insulting. I wasn't insulted in any way, and my opponent made sure to include that. What I will point out, however, is that it doesn't seem like my opponent isn't arguing about sex education at all. He's arguing for capitalizing abstinence. The problem is that as I've explained in my case, comprehensive sex education solves for exactly what my opponent is looking for. My opponent is reading this debate through a moral lens for something about practicality, so it's evident that my opponent is even looking at this debate through the correct format. My opponent has made a litany of misconceptions and misunderstandings about my case, and in the end, he hasn't argued anything I said. Furthermore, he has nothing to support his side of the BOP defending abstinence-only education. QED, the argumentation vote is mine.