http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10552591 Quite an interesting bit of news. So what do you all think of the Philippine Catholic Church's attempts to block the teaching of contraceptive use in sex education? Is abstinence-only sex education more effective? (Apparently there are statistics saying so, but whether they are accurate or correctly done is another story.)
How.. silly I think that would be counterproductive to sex education Sure, teach abstinence but also teach kids how to protect themselves from diseases
Yeah it would seem that way, but with the irresponsibility of teenagers today, it might help to an extent. Teens would at least be limited to one less source of inappriopriately timed sex education. I mean, if you didn't want teens doing it, why teach them? Teach them when their legal already.
Well I'm not sure what the age of consent in the Philippines is, but here in Canada it's 16 (14 a few years ago!) so teens are legally allowed to have sex wayy before they are 'of age'. So it makes sense to teach protection..
The problem with not teaching them is that they'll do it anyway, just without the recommended level of protection. While teenage sexual activity may sound incredible to some, it is actually occurring more often than most people think...
No I think the majority of the world has come to the fact that teenagers do have a lot of sex. -.- Like I said, not teaching them will at least limit it to a certain degree. I mean, out of 10 teens, there will probably be 8 who want to do it, but by not teaching them, 2 out of those 8 will probably not try it out because they never learned. The other 6 will probably still find other sources to learn from like their friends, or just try it out themselves. But that 2 out of 10, or 20% will already be a big improvement in itself.
I'm not sure if your statement is true, since most studies appear to indicate that abstinence-only education is ineffective, even for virgins.
Really? I hope you have solid proof, because I, along with the Internet, beg to differ. First result on Google for 'abstinence education studies' says otherwise. 1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/educa ... .html?_r=1 - Abstinence-Only Education is Found to Delay Sex 2) Then, on this comprehensive paper, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... e-Evidence 16 out of 21 studies for abstinence-only sex ed showed POSITIVE results. What studies were you talking about exactly? I REALLY hope they weren't made up ones. :yup:
The first thing that pops up on Google isn't necessary right. (Perhaps you should at least try Google Scholar, if not a proper database.) Most peer reviewed studies do not show abstinence-only sex education to be effective in reducing pregnancy rates, STD infection rates, etc.. A search on PubMed produced 25 comprehensive reviews (similar to the one you found), none of which found abstinence-only sex education to be effective. For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16387256 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17885460 Studies that show abstinence-only sex education to be ineffective far outnumber those that report otherwise. For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18401923 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18346659 As for the comprehensive review by Heritage Foundation, the studies it cites have design flaws. For instance, the test subjects and the education type to which they are assigned are often not randomly selected. Furthermore, some of these studies only wait a few months before checking back with the subjects to determine if they had been sexually active. Most peer-reviewed studies use longer wait times, usually at least a year. Then there's also the glaringly obvious fact that the Heritage Foundation is a biased, conservative think tank. The study mentioned by your NY Times article is more reliable. However, as noted by the news article, "unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage. The classes also did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information. Dr. Jemmott’s abstinence-only course was designed for the research, and is not in current use in schools." This means that the abstinence education curriculum used by this study is quite different from the abstinence-only programs in the US and what the Philippine Catholic Church wants.
Before you start attacking my source, make sure you check if your proof is even VALID. All of your articles are dated 2008 and back, most of them in 2006 and 2005. My articles are dated 2010. Therefore mine would be the correct update to yours and the valid articles for discussion. Not only are your articles OUTDATED, they are also completely INVALID because as I said, my articles update your article's info. Before the release of my information, your proof may have been deemed valid. Unfortunately, they only considered the studies of the past. They did not consider at all the studies that have been made from beyond that time, and within those 2 crucial years, clearly a lot of change and improvement has occurred, thus explaining my articles' stands. Unless you can even provide me a smidge of info that considers my 2010 studies, there's no point in arguing your stand. As I said, it's invalid.
No need to get so fired up, odieboy. Unless teenage behavior has changed since 2008, there's really nothing wrong with my evidence. Instead of looking at something as superficial as dates (and it's only a few years difference), why not analyze the experimental methodology of these studies, as I did? And there's no reason to be so preoccupied with dates, because your Heritage Foundation evidence reviewed only articles that were produced in 2008 or earlier. So it's not as if it is any more recent. Most importantly, it doesn't really matter who "wins" this debate. The most pressing matter is that the Philippines current sex education is not working, and any serious reform is being blocked.
Lol, I focused on the dates because you focused on Heritage Foundation's credibility. I never bring up variables that are out of context of the topic unless the opposing side brings them up. Then I would be at a disadvantage. And that's why I chose two articles. If Heritage doesn't par up to your standard, then there's the NY times. I wasn't trying to win the debate. But since you blatantly stated that I was wrong, I had to provide counter information.
Since you did start a debate by saying: it's not exactly surprising for me to be "attacking" your evidence. After all, I am defending a view different from yours. You can't possibly expect me to accept everything you say to be true, can you? Anyway, this debate can be a lot more fun if you actually answer my arguments. For example, I made the following 3 arguments: but you made no substantive response to any of them. Instead, you make quite a long speech about dates: to which I responded to with this: Then you again fail to answer the above argument, and spend another post saying something that doesn't make much sense: Erm, what? Are you trying to say that you can preempt every single one of my arguments just by posting the first 2 things you found on Google?
Yeap, pretty much. (Again, you started the "attacking" of outside factors, so I took this as a sign that I should as well. ) I'm like a broken record now! My articles outdate yours. Your articles don't consider the innovations my articles consider. Therefore, the more correct and more valid source for this discussion would be mine, if yours is even valid at all anymore (which I assumed it wasn't since, again, my information directly updates yours. It's like an update to a program! )
Debating with you is pointless, as you appear to be incapable of evaluating information and answering coherent arguments. Perhaps you will learn how to do so after you get into university. Your Heritage evidence does not magically invalidate my evidence because it's from 2010, as you somehow think. Neither does your article "directly update" mine because it only reviewed studies that were produced earlier than 2008, not to mention that the studies they used were extremely flawed. If you can't understand what my argument means, it means that your Heritage study did not update anything. It simply took old, flawed studies and used it to promote the foundation's agenda, as think tanks are wont to do. Your NY Times evidence does not magically invalidate my either, because If you cannot understand what this means, it means that the sex education curriculum used by this study is not representative of what is used by abstinence-only programs in the US. Therefore, it is impossible to use this study to prove that the abstinence-only programs currently being used are good. If you are still incapable of understanding, then don't bother responding and let this thread die.
I don't really get why you keep undermining Heritage as a source. But rather than quibble about that with you, You didn't state in your very first rebuttal of my information that you were referring to the cases that the US use and Philippine church wants to use. You simply generalized that all information was in scope of yours, when the information was more complex and could be subdivided into sections of discussion (in this case the cases referring to the US and Philippine Church, and cases that don't) And if debating with me is according to you pointless, then debating with you would be even more pointless. You use fallacious tactics that very well don't belong in a debate. In this very case, the Poisoning the well fallacy for stating that debating with me is pointless. You even prejudiced the fact that I'm not a university student? So you discriminate me just because I'm not, or you attack me because you're frustrated. Again, stick to the debate man. I may be a hard-headed debater, but at least I am one. You on the other hand just get frustrated and you give up, attacking me rather than the topic. If my defense is the dates then accept it, don't put it down. Oh and Ad hominem for the Heritage foundation criticism, which you constantly ridicule with your bias and prejudice that it is a "think tank". And before you get smart with me that I'm a hypocrite for swaying from the topic and attacking you with these fallacies, again, I debate within the rules my opponent debates in. I only reacted to what you dished out first. Again, I may be a hard-headed debater, but at least I follow the rules.
As fruitless as this debate is, I am still tempted to respond because I am desperate for more posts, at a risk of creating some kind of feud between us . Anyway, you again didn't answer any of my arguments, so I will refrain from reposting them a third time. But as you are so convinced that you have somehow already answered them, perhaps a third party should decide if your "answers" are really satisfactory. However, I'm not sure if anyone wants to read through this thread. Perhaps we can ask Junior. He seems like a smart guy. <3 I also don't see why you are so bothered by a few flippant remarks from me, when you are not exactly gentle yourself. (And if debating with me is pointless, why did you respond?)
I don't take anything personally when it comes to debate. Sure, go ahead and add a third party if you want to. I couldn't care less. If I wasn't gentle, at least I didn't outright discriminate you, as I said, by questioning my level of intellect with your university remark. I know how to refrain, and respect my opponents to the standard that they deserve to be treated with. I responded because the debate wasn't over, simple as that. And even if you were pointless to debate, that would be a personal bias. I don't like it when people bring outside factors into debate, like stopping a debate because my opinion of the opposing side is negative.
I fail to see what is left to debate, when you refuse to answer any arguments and think my perfectly sound arguments are "against the rules" or an "outside factor". So what would be acceptable to you? Perhaps something like this would be more up to your standards? XD
I already answered your arguments, so you thinking my arguments are inept would be just the same as my thinking your arguments are against the rules. Oh and I didn't judge your arguments because they were arguments. I judged them, as I state again, because you judged my source, therefore incited my judging the credibility of your own.