It is rational to allow children of any age to buy condoms.

First I refuse to accept my opponents definitions because it is false....I looked up his source and here is the actual definition of a child from his own source.child-a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: puberty- the age at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction of offspring: presumed to be 14 years in the male and 12 years in the female.http://dictionary.reference.com...I apologize on behalf of my opponent for falsifying definitions. Since these are false I wonder what else about his case is false? Lets see he attempts to say giving children condoms has been shown to decrease usage but his source is unfound. Also Unless they surveyed every single child whom was given condoms from vending machines( witch school don't allow) witch is logically impossible then it is a falsified claim either by him or the surveyors. Think about it, how can someone track every single condom purchased from a vending machine? Also this is countered by the fact that condoms are only given by schools through the counselors after talking with the student. So his entire last contention is a fallacy.Moving on he says your not a child once you reach adolescence. judging from the definition provided a person doesn't reach full growth until there considered an adult witch is beyond adolescence.( also in my opinion your still a child unless you have a car and a house...lol).( to my opponent I politely ask for you not to submit any other definitions since you falsified the last couple please).lastly the age of adolescence is commonly accepted to be from 12-14. Obviously by the examples of children engaging in sex before the age of adolescence that I have given below being 10 and 11 obviously children are having sex.Age of consentYes there is the age of consent but obviously children are having sex below the age of consent as early as 11 or 12( or in my case 10)......http://www.iol.co.za...http://www.medindia.net...http://old.post-gazette.com... as I have proven in my case, we cant stop other people from having sex under the age of consent. (Because children experience sexual development before the age of consent I personally believe the age of consent should be increased. But that's another debate.) Since we cant stop them from having sex then e should do more damage by disallowing them to use condoms. If we ban them from using condoms then were going to have more std's and children having children. Though we cant stop the problem we ought to take some steps to protect them and ourselves from having to care for there children. If we ban condom use for them then we will only add fuel to the fire. My opponent claims that providing condoms makes kids more sexual. I've already tackled this issue in my speech. Giving children condoms is no more risky than teaching suicide awareness promotes suicide. Lastly giving children condoms doesn't mean there going to go home and watch pornography. Do you buy condoms and then directly go home and watch porn no. Usually if you buy a condom the intention is to have sex. and not watch porn.Seeing as my opponents case is defeated lets go to my case kids are having sex and need protectionAs I stated earlier.... "If there was some unethical law requiring a minimum age, then children are going to have sex anyway and will be extremely at risk of pregnancy and std's".....I have been proven correct because of the evidence that kids are having sex below the age of consent, and lets be honest here kids having sex usually are not going to get caught. We cant stop kids from having sex and if we deny them protection then there is an increased risk that they will catch a std or create a baby in witch the parents will be taking care of.counselors giving sexually active students condoms is justified(I'm out of characters) go pro