Instigator / Pro
11
1730
rating
28
debates
89.29%
won
Topic

Resolved: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
3
Sources points
4
2
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Education
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
9
1663
rating
64
debates
68.75%
won
Description
~ 1,194 / 5,000

Abstinence: "the fact of not doing something, such as drinking alcohol or having sex:" [1]
Only: "used to show that there is a single one or very few of something, or that there are no others:" [2]
Sex Education: "a school course about sexual reproduction and sexual feelings" [3]
Effective: "successful or achieving the results that you want:" [4]
Reducing: "to become or to make something become smaller in size, amount, degree, importance, etc.:" [5]
Teenage: "aged between 13 and 19:" [6]
Pregnancy: "the state of being pregnant:" [7]

[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/abstinence
[2]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/only
[3]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sex-education
[4]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/effective
[5]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reduce?q=reducing+
[6]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/teenage
[7]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pregnancy

General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared

Round 1
Pro
RESOLUTION: Abstinence-only sex education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancies
POSITION: Pro


OPENING STATEMENT:
Thank you for accepting the debate Fauxlaw, I look forward to a productive debate, and I thank any voters in advance for giving this debate a read-through.

Throughout the year's people have had radically different views of sex, what is acceptable, what isn't, and our motivations behind these ideas have changed Just as much. According to business insider having sex before marriage was seen as acceptable by only around 30% of the population in the 70s, this percentage rose to approximately 50% acceptance in the 2000s [1]. Acceptance of gay and lesbian sex has tripled since the 70s according to the same source [1]. With such radical shifts in perspective, one would also expect shifts in how we teach about sex to the new generation. After all, these people are our future, these people will determine how our country is shaped in not only our future but their future. 

However, data trends have seen comprehensive sex education decreasing in formal sex instruction [2], for example, the Guttmacher Institute reported that: " The share of adolescents aged 15–19 who had received formal instruction about how to say no to sex but had received no instruction about birth control methods increased between 2006–2010 and 2011–2013, from 22% to 28% among females and from 29% to 35% among males" [2] [3]. What does this tell us? That despite our paradigm shifts from the decades past and rapidly increasing technology [4], we still teach the same way, in fact - Guttmacher Institute's report suggests that our education is regressing. That should make anybody question:

Regressing to what?


INTERPRETING TERMS & RESOLUTIONS
There is one obvious answer to that question, and the one I want to demonstrate today isn't effective at reducing teenage pregnancies. I sought to not only introduce the topic to those who might not be as informed, but also frame exactly why this fact is so important to establish. Abstinence-only sex education isn't unbiasedly defined in its entirety, so instead, I combined two unbiased definitions provided by the Cambridge dictionary, abstinence, only, and sex education. Combined they form the following definition (as sourced by the description of the debate): "a school course about sexual reproduction and sexual feelings,  a single one or very few of something, or that there are no others, teaching to.. not.. hav(e) sex "

That definition is a tad hard to understand, so let's put the definition in less exact terms, but much clearer ones nonetheless. Abstinence is essentially not having something, or not doing something, in this case, it means "not have sex". So, Abstinence-only sex education would refer to sex education which only teaches about sex in terms of... not having it. I'm sure any debater could see the issue here, whenever you are defining something only by what it's not, you usually don't have a very clear image of what it is. That would imply that such an education, is fundamentally flawed, as it has no obligation to teach anything about contraceptives (and in fact typically don't [5]). From this regard, it should be obvious then, why the resolution is true.


OBSERVATIONS (OF THE RESOLUTION)
  • IF Con were to argue that Abstinence education does in fact reduce teen pregnancy, THEN they would have to provide data regarding only abstinence sex-education, not a mix of two, as that is not topical to the debate
  • Con is not strictly limited by the definitions provided by pro; however, Pro would have a B.O.P to claim to have any definitions which the voters should prefer over the definitions in the description, Con would have to demonstrate the purposed definitions validity.
  • IF Con attempts to argue that the resolution is true using non-standard definitions, THEN they must demonstrate that those terms are more reasonably what is intended given the resoltuion, thus, they must explictiedly demonstrate such vocabulary differences.
Essentially, Con must be using topical arguments, or arguments which fall within the actual subject matter of the resolution.


CONTENTION I. (TRENDS)
My first contention is a fairly simple one - we have several data trends which actually evaluate whether abstinence only sex education reduce teen pregnancy, as I am pro for the resolution this probably doens't surprise many voters; however, it would amiss of me to simply state that fact and cite a source, let's take a look at several studies which ask the question, "How effective is abstinence only sex education?" and why they come back with the answer of "not very."

From the 2011 study by Kathrin F. Stranger-Hall and David Hall; Abstenince-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why we need comprehensive sex education in the U.S [6]:
"These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S."
What a declarative abstract hm? The abstract goes on to explain that the study is in the footsteps of other such articles arguing for increased comprehensive sex-education in the U.S. We'll ignore the latter bit for now, seeing as its not exactly relavent to the point, and focus on the bold words here. "ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy".. First of all the authors establish the relatively high rate of teenage pregnancy in the U.S compared to other countries, Table 1 clearly shows that America has a rate at about triple that of France's teen-pregnancies per 1000 girls. 

After talking a bit about the debate between comprehensive and abstinence sex education, the study gets to the juicy stuff, and I'll let the study talk once more, in the first paragraph after the 1st table [6]:
"Labor-Health and Human Services, Education and Other Agencies” appropriations bill including a total of $114 million for a new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative for FY 2010 was signed into law in December 2009. This constitutes the first large-scale federal investment dedicated to preventing teen pregnancy through research- and evidence-based efforts. "
Let's then explore this "federal investment dedicated to preventing teen pregnancy through researtch- and evidence-based efforts."

We are given two sources here, identified as the 6th and 8th source that was referenced by the article, I will list them here [6]:
6. Trenholm C, Devaney B, Fortson K, Quay L, Wheeler J, et al. “Impacts of four Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs” (Mathematica Policy Research). 2007. Available: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/. Accessed 2010, May 8.
8. Kirby D. Emerging Answers, Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Washington, DC). 2007. www.thenational campaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_full.pdf. Accessed 2010, Jun 18.

The first source is a governmental summary of the aforementioned bill's findings; including this on the "Impacts on Sexual Abstinence and Teen Risk Behaviors" [7]:
"Findings indicate that, despite the effects seen after the first year, programs had no statistically significant impact on eventual behavior.В  Based on data from the final follow-up survey, youth in the program group were no more likely to abstain from sex than their control group counterparts; among those who reported having had sex, program and control group youth had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age."

Well if this isn't conclusive, furthermore, the other source is a report written by Douglas Kirby Ph.D regarding the same evidencial information, found on page 17 of the PDF, under the italisized subheading "Abstinence programs" [8]
"At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays theinitiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence,or reduces the number of sexual partners. Inaddition, there is strong evidence from multiplerandomized trials demonstrating that some abstinence programs chosen for evaluation becausethey were believed to be promising actually hadno impact on teen sexual behavior"

One might object, and justly, that "Well, that's regarding a lack of statistical evidence, would that not be outdated, as the oldest report cited was written in 2011?" You would be correct that this is slightly outdated information; however unless Con can argue that there has been substantial changes to how abstinence only sex education works, that would not actually combat my argument. But. That would be ignoring the fact that there are actually more modern studies which support the conclusions of the previously mentioned reports, namely: "Funding for Abstinence-Only Education and Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention: Does State Ideology Affect Outcomes?" By Ashley M. Fox MA, Georgia Himmelstein BA, Hina Khalid PhD, MPP, and Elizabeth A. Howell MD, MPP.

The study actually analyzed two things, abstinence-only education's effects on teen pregnancy, and the rate at which state idealogy affects states rates of teen pregnancy. The latter topic of study isn't relevant to today's debate, and therefore I will only be analzying the data suggesting the content of this resolution is true, that abstinence only sex education is not effective in reducing teen-pregnancy: going to the conclusions and results sub-headings of the abstract we can see what this study has to say about abstincence only sex education [9]:
"Results. Federal abstinence-only funding had no effect on adolescent birthrates overall but displayed a perverse effect, increasing adolescent birthrates in conservative states. Adolescent pregnancy–prevention and sexuality education funding eclipsed this effect, reducing adolescent birthrates in those states. Conclusions. The millions of dollars spent on abstinence-only education has had no effect on adolescent birthrates, although conservative states, which experience the greatest burden of adolescent births, are the most responsive to changes in sexuality education–funding streams"

That also appears to be very conclusive, unfortunately for analysis, the rest of the study is locked behind a pay wall, never fear - we have the powers of references, and I am particularly interested in one. By Feldman Farb A and Margolis AL - The teen pregnancy prevention program (2010–2015): synthesis of impact findings [10]:
"All of the program evaluations were rigorous designs; 37 (90%) were RCTs, and four were rigorous quasi-experimental designs (QEDs; Table 2). Twenty-two evaluations used cluster-level random assignment, and 15 used individual-level random assignment. Tier 1 consisted of seven individual-level RCTs, 10 cluster RCTs, and 2 QEDs. Tier 2 consisted of eight individual-level RCTs, 12 cluster RCTs, and two QEDs. Forty-nine percent of the evaluations were conducted in a school setting (during or after school), 20% in community-based organizations, 7% in clinics, and 5% online (Table 2). Fewer than half of the evaluations provided a program to the control group, examples include health and nutrition classes, college or career training, safe driving, and mentoring. Most (53%) of the evaluations compared their program to “business as usual.” Business as usual ranged from no other sexual or reproductive health education, to fairly generous sexual or reproductive health education. Evaluations were conducted with a fairly even split of participants in middle school (29%), high school (29%), and high school and older (24%), and a smaller proportion spanning both middle- and high-school (17%; Table 2). The majority of evaluations examined abstinence or sexual activity (73%) and condom or contraceptive use (80%). Pregnancy (22%) and frequency of sex (20%) were also common behavioral outcomes and a small number of evaluations examined STI rates and number of sexual partners"

That is a big confusing paragrapgh, but it summarizedly finds that abstinence only sex education finds that students will still particapate in sex at majority rates (re: just read the bolded setence there). The study cites Table 2, which, topically, shows the percentages discussed in the paragraph above. The methods here are rigorously tested, and found that earlier postive results (which might be subject to Con's sourcing) was found to be incorrect due to expansions of the study. This fact is mentioned under "PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS" [10]:
"Research across many fields has demonstrated that when programs are scaled up, as in effectiveness or replication studies, they often don’t find the same positive outcomes the original studies found.2–6 The number has been estimated to be as low as 10% to 20% of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that result in the same significant positive impacts as found in the original study.6,7"

To summarize my point here: Studies have found no correlation in abstinence-only education and reduced teen pregnancies. 

I have defined effective as: "successful or achieving the results that you want:" and  reducing as: "to become or to make something become smaller in size, amount, degree, importance, etc." This can therefore be summarized to: "successful or achieving the result of making teen pregnancy smaller in amount", so, the fact that Abstinence only education does not do achieve the result of making teen pregnancy smaller in amount means that the resolution is true: "Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy"


CONTENTION II. (OF COURSE NOT)
My second case is a more syllogistic one, a case which I like to refer to as: "Of course not". Which is to say, "Of course abstinence-only sex education isn't effective at reducing teen pregnancy." As I hinted in the interpetations section of this round, Abstinence only sex edcuations aren't usually inclined to teach about contraceptives and other measures of not getting pregnanct.... you know, aside from, "Don't have sex." I also have evidence to back this up [5]:
"Abstinence-Only Education – Also called “Sexual Risk Avoidance.” Teaches that abstinence is the expected standard of behavior for teens. Usually excludes any information about the effectiveness of contraception or condoms to prevent unintended pregnancy and STIs. Sometimes must adhere to the 8-point federal definition (Table 3)."

Let's then lay this out in a premise-premise-conclusion format:

PREMISE: Abstinence-only education does not typically teach about other measures of preventing birth aside from abstinence
PREMISEIF such a scenario occurs where a teenager isn't abstinent, THEN they would not know other ways to prevent pregnancy
CONCLUSION: Therefore, IF Teenagers do not remain abstinent after the education, THEN they are more likely to become or induce pregnancy. 

The one argument I haven't proven in this contention? The if bit on the conclusions, thing is, I did prove that... in the entire contention preceeding this one. Obviously if teen-pregnancies aren't affected by abstinence only education, the kids aren't being abstinent. What a shocker, I know. The point of this contention is to stress to the voters how simple the logic is which explains why abstinence only education isn't effective in reducing teen pregnancies. It isn't really interested in reducing pregnancies, its interested in kids not having sex, and those are two, very different things, as I have demonstrated today.


CONCLUSIONS:
In summary, I affirm the stated resolution: "Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy", because the data we have demonstrate that abstinence only sex-education isn't effective at reducing teen pregnancy, and of course abstinence only sex education in not effective in reducing teen pregnancy. This is due to the fact that the abstinence only programs are interested in stopping kids from having sex, not comprehensively teaching them how to avoid pregnancy. I have several sources to support such a claim, ones which are up to date as well. Thank you my opponent and Voters for reading this round, I have resolved my burden of proof, on to Con.


SOURCES:

Con
Resolved: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
 
I Argument: “Abstinence is the only form of birth control that always prevents pregnancy.”[1]
 
I.a The quote above is clear and concise. Any child in an educating environment learns best [demonstrating effective teaching] when their skills and behavior comply with what is taught.[2]
 
I.a.1 The Resolution defines our parameters, i.e., that “Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy.” Teaching any matter is not effective unless the student actually complies with what is taught. Behavior after teaching, then, is one key to discovery of successful, effective teaching. As source [2] explains:
 
“The skills needed for effective teaching involve more than just expertise in an academic field. You must be able to interact with people and help them understand a new way of looking at the world. This is not an easy job! Although there are many different ways to teach effectively, good instructors have several qualities in common. They are prepared, set clear and fair expectations, have a positive attitude, are patient with students, and assess their teaching on a regular basis.”[3]
 
I.a.2 Teachers must, in fairness to the subject, present abstinence on equal footing, on the same page, as it were, with other, artificial contraceptive methods, and therein is the challenge. In that respect, the Resolution is somewhat truismistic, but I’ll accept it as is. Children are equally responsible to do as taught. Children are obligated to practice what is taught with equal attention to the instructions. 
 
I.a.3 If children are taught all methods, in this case of prevention of pregnancy, and practice as taught, then abstinence is shown by data to be the most effective method to achieve the Resolution’s goal of reducing teen pregnancy. 
 
I.b Abstinence, by definition offered by Pro, is, "the fact of not doing something, such as drinking alcohol or having sex."  I accept Pro’s definition as given. It is an experiment on what is taught by complete avoidance of the subject at hand. 
 
I.c By definition, then, abstinence can have nothing but 100% effectiveness if practiced as faithfully as one would practice any other current artificial contraceptive method because it completely avoids the opportunity of pregnancy to occur by coitus. Every other means still engages in coitus, and every other method has percentages of failure of prevention.[4]

I.c.1 It follows that the practice of abstinence, whether or not the education is abstinence-only, or abstinence-plus other contraceptive education, has a percentage of failure, but only if the education is not practiced by students by engaging in sexual activity. But if the students do practice according to abstinence education, regardless of it being abstinence-only, or abstinence-plus, the results of practice will be not just reduction of teen pregnancy, but the opportunity, for that student, to prevent teen pregnancy.

I.c.1 Therefore, the Resolution is not merely refuted by such argument, but the goal of its “reduction” is completely overblown by “prevention.”

II Argument: “Abstinence only…”
II.a I recognize that I have presented a multiple choice of options of reduction of pregnancy, and that, of them, abstinence is the best choice because it actually achieves prevention, and not just reduction. Whereas, the Resolution speaks to “abstinence only sex education” as not being effective in “reducing teen pregnancy.” This becomes a complete fallacy, and, therefore, a failure of BoP, for what artificial contraceptive method that can be applied today has an achievement of 100% prevention, and not just a percentage reduction?[5]

II.a.1 “Effective” was defined by Pro as, "successful or achieving the results that you want." I accept the definition as given. If “the results” sought is “reducing teen pregnancy,” I will note for the record that Pro’s Resolution does not seek prevention of teen pregnancy, but merely “reduction.” I submit, then, that Pro’s Resolution fails to distinguish reduction and prevention, but which, dear reader, is the more effective goal? “Effective” is the Resolution.
 
II.a.2 Pro defines “reduction” as, "to become or to make something become smaller in size, amount, degree, importance, etc."   I accept this definition, as well. However, I will rebut by observance that prevention means “to become or to make something non-existent in size, amount, degree, and that  is most important.” In matters of importance, prevention is best observed by eradication of size, amount, and degree of teen pregnancy.
 
II.b Therefore, it must be concluded that “reduction of teen pregnancy” is obviously best achieved by abstinence from [prevention by self-motivation] teen sexual activity. Thus, abstinence is the best [most effective] of all choices of contraception.
 
II.b.1 Therefore, in the final analysis, if abstinence is the only lesson taught in prevention of teen pregnancy, it is still the most effective method to be taught in that it blows “reduction” out of competition. It will be evident that it is, by size, amount, degree and importance, the most effective, and not merely more than as effective as other methods to address teen pregnancy.
 
II.c How does abstinence work? “Abstinence is the simplest form of birth control. If two people don't have sex, sperm can't fertilize an egg and there's no possibility of pregnancy. Other forms of birth control: 

1. depend on barriers that prevent the sperm from reaching the egg (such ascondoms or diaphragms, and, 
2. interfere with themenstrual cycle (as birth control pills do)
“With abstinence, no barriers or pills are needed.”[6]
 
II.d How well does abstinence work?   “Abstinence is the only form of birth control that always prevents pregnancy. Practicing abstinence ensures that a girl will not become pregnant because there is no chance for sperm to fertilize an egg.”[7]

III Argument: Ineffective teaching methods
 
III.a Abstention of sexual activity applies a wider scope of analysis of behavior and decision points of practice to achieve the purpose than slipping on a condom, or popping a pill. In the case of this Resolution, the achievement is a clean dress, not a stained blue dress. Which, do you judge, is the more effective method to achieve the wanted result?
 
III.a.4 By the Resolution, I do not need to prove absolute prevention. I merely need to prove reduction. That the concept, in a vacuum, demonstrates prevention, and not just reduction, is all in favor of my BoP to demonstrate effective abstinence education.
 
IV Argument: By the Resolution, even a 1:1,000 reduction demonstrates effectiveness
 
IV.a Pro argues that, by the Resolution, abstinence is not effective by application of some percentage of failure to be abstinent. That is, after all, his entire BoP. Pro may use the argument that not all who attempt practice of abstinence are successful; that they will fail by engaging in coitus with the risk of pregnancy realized. Pro thus establishes by argument, but not by Resolution, that there are degrees of failure of effectiveness. Yes, I agree to the possibility. However, the argument fails on the point that those who do prevail with mind-over-matter, so to speak, are successful in resisting the temptation to fail in their resolve to remain abstinent. They demonstrate the effective teaching of abstinence, and by so doing, demonstrate that by their conviction, teen pregnancy is reduced. If one in 1,000 are successful, that one example demonstrates that education in successful resistance by abstinence, and one example is sufficient to prove my BoP. If the ratio of success against failure is higher, the effectiveness is only greater: fewer teens become pregnant. That demonstrates, by lack of degree of failure in the Resolution, that the Resolution fails its all-or-nothing proposition.
 
V Rebuttal: “…teaching to… not… have sex.”
 
V.a Pro’s quote of interpretation of two separate definitions, offered in the Description, of “Sex Education”  and “Only,”  and that “Combined they form the following definition [as sourced by the description of the debate]: ‘a school course about sexual reproduction and sexual feelings, a single one or very few of something, or that there are no others, teaching to… not… have[e] sex”  is, sadly, not the definition of “Only”  that is the trailing definition of the combination in Pro’s argument, as it is stated in the Description. Lacking in the Definition is the bolded text [my emphasis].
 
V.a.1 This is critical to the debate, and Pro’s Resolution BOP credibility, since the added, bolded text is literally definition creep. Further, since Pro has put this entire combined definition in quotes, Pro is apparently quoting a source he does not specify, and I, for one, would like to know why the bolded phrase has a set of two ellipses, which indicate intentional omission of words. What is removed from the quote, and why, when Pro admits the combined definition is “a tad hard to understand?”
 
V.a.2 Moreover Pro’s creep, “a tad hard to understand,”  needs  “less exact terms?”  Less, as in “whenever you are defining something by what it is not, you usually don’t have a very clear image of what it is.” It  is not? It is? Is It  Pro’s choice for a less-exact term? What it? Pro is engaging the same obfuscation he accuses abstinence-only education of doing – not describing the subject at hand: SEX. Coitus. Rolling in the sheets. Making the two-backed monster. Carnal knowledge between two [or more?] people.  No wonder Pro finds it “a tad hard to understand,”   but he assumes we’re ignorant, as well? We’re adults here, we can say it out loud. But we’re dealing with the education of impressionable youth, in Pro’s aging, 13-to-19-year-olds. I suggest that this age group has a sense of what SEX is, and Pro need not tipsy-toe around the term; certainly not for our benefit. If Pro has to tipsy-toe, is his Resolution any better educated? I don’t doubt that using less exact terms does make for a problematic Resolution.
 
VI Rebuttal: Contentions I [Trends]
 
VI.a Pro cites a source,[8]   claiming that their study result is: “not very,”  in answer to the question, “How effective is abstinence only sex education?”  Pro quotes: “These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teen pregnancy and may actually be contributingto the high volume of teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.”   [bolded for my emphasis] The source, itself, does not provide evidence of the claim, nor does Pro, given its introductory phrasing, “and may…”  In other words, they don’t know, and did not bother to verify.
 
VI.b The Aabstract of Pro’s source says, “Using the most recent national data [2005] from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies [N=48], we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates.”[9]
 
VI.b.1 I will note, first that Pro’s quote of the source [re-quoted above, VI.a] is a sentence later in the Abstract, but note that the two phrases do not agree relative to abstinence,  and abstinence-only;  a bifurcated argument.
 
VI.b.2 Note, second, that the data is from 2005; the study documented by this source is 2011; 6-year-old data. I will pursue the matter of numbers of teen pregnancy within these salient years later. For now, let’s just see the hard data from CDC: According to the CDC, [2017] the percentage of teen pregnancies in the U.S. is 18 per 1,000 in the age group 15 to 19, the closest to the age group Pro identified as “teen.”[10]  Is this “high volume,”[11]  or may we be facing an agenda-driven argument from Pro’s source [my [8]]?
 
VI.b.2.A The source Pro cites, [10], for the claim of “high volume” is Guttmacher Institute,[12]  a respected source for this data, but the data reported is from 2001, a generation ago. Conversely, data from WorldPopulationReview.com, with data reporting currently [2021] indicates that incidents of teen pregnancy in the U.S. have reduced  to a record level in the past 20 years to 17.7:1,000 teens.[13]. That this may still lead developed nations is inconsequential to the Resolution, which does not speak to such comparisons. Pro’s Resolution is an all-or-nothing proposition.
 
VI.b.3 Further, CDC reports that in 1999, teenage birth rate was at 48.8:1,000, and that rate has been declining ever since to 22.3:1,000 in 2015, a reduction of 54.3%.[14]  Between 2015 and 2017, the rate further reduced by 15.6% for a total drop of 61.4% for the first 17 years of the 21% century.  The CDC concluded: “Although reasons for the declines are not totally clear, evidence suggests these declines are due to more teens abstaining from sexual activity, and more teens who are sexually active using birth control than in previous years.”
 
VI.c Pro continues with sources examining risk behavior and cost impacts, admitting that the data reported by sources, “One might object, and justly,that ‘Well, that's regarding a lack of statistical evidence, would that not be outdated, as the oldest report cited was written in 2011?’ You would be correct that this is slightly outdated information”   and proceeded to ignore this admittedly justly  argument, which is, in fact, a just argument. It is old data, which Pro unjustly waives by saying, “…unless Con can argue that there has been substantial changes to how abstinence only sex education works, that would not actually combat my argument.”  I just did argue that exact point, by citing the CDC from 2017 in VI.b.3, above [in bolded text]. Also refer to my arguments in I.a to I.a.3, above.
 
VI.d Pro concludes his Contentions I argument with, “To summarize my point here: Studies have found no correlation in abstinence-only education and reduced teen pregnancies.” No, none of his sources do that correlation, so, of course they have no finding of correlation. To rebut, I offer this data from ThoughtCo.com[15]  from 2019:
 
VI.d.1 The article is a state-by-state correlation of sex education: [1] some kind of sex ed mandated, [2] contraceptive only ed, [3] contr + abstinence, [4] abstinence only, [5] no sex ed mandated, but do so, and [6] do nothing. The results are all states’ numbers by count engaging these 6 variations in sex ed. Note items [2], [3], and [4]:
 
1.    States engaging [1]   42       84%
2.    States engaging [2]   18       36% over 1/3 of states are contraceptive-only, as reported [see VI.d.2, below]
3.    States engaging [3]   26       52%  most states do both con + abs
4.    States engaging [4]   11       22%  over 1/5 of states are abstinence-only, as reported [see VI.d.2, below]
5.    States engaging [5]   10       20%    
6.    States engaging [6]      8       16%
 
VI.d.2 A pair of stats drawn from the above data from my source [15], ThoughtCo.com are these:
 
1.    Of the 11 states that report being abstinence-only states, 5 are true abstinence-only states, item [4], statewide, while the remaining 3 do have districts with shared ed systems [con + abs], item [3]. These 5 [true abs-only] show a teen pregnancy rate of 15.8%; below  the most current national rate average, 17.7%.
 
2.    Of the 18 states that report being contraceptive-only states, 13 are true contraceptive-only states, item [2], statewide, while the remaining 5 do have districts with shared ed systems [con + abs], item [3]. These 13 [true con-only]  show a teen pregnancy rate of 18.7%; above  the most current national rate average, 17.7%.
 
VI.d.3 Clearly, the data demonstrates that abstinence-only education does correlate with reduction in teen pregnancy, refuting Pro’s Contention I conclusion [the “trend” clearly indicates a reduction in teen pregnancies, and that abstinence-only is contributing to it]. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s Contention II [Syllogism]
 
VII.a Both Pro’s syllogism’s premises must be true for the logic to follow. Just P1 fails by claiming Abs-only ed is not typically taught with other contraceptive methods, which, by the inclusion of “typical” allows for the possibility, and, violates the Resolution’s specificity by allowing creep. The above argument VI.d.1 indicates 52% of states do just that; i.e., teach con+abs. Also, there are states that claim to teach both abst-only, but also contraception + abstinence, 8 of the 11, or 16% of them. This is due to state differentiation district-to-district, and therefore muddies the data.  Syllogisms do not muddy with logical results. Finally, note the distinction of teen pregnancy data between true abstinence-only states, statewide [15.8%], and true contraceptive-only states, statewide [18.7%], in VI.d.2, above.
 
VII.b Therefore, Pro’s Contention II fails, as does the Resolution.
 
I conclude my R1 arguments and rebuttals. Pass R2 to Pro.
 
 


[3]ibid
[5]ibid
[7]ibid
[9]ibid

Round 2
Pro
RESOLUTION: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
POSITION: Pro


STRUCTURE:
First, Thanks Fauxlaw for the thought-provoking Rebuttal, I admittedly had to read it a few times to get what I think is the best grasp of it. Now, onto the actual round, Con argues first with a 4 pronged argument and a three-pronged rebuttal, excellent stuff, however, each contention is arranged in numerical order. Thus I will respond to each in the same numerical order, if a rebuttal is in reference to two arguments, then both numbers will be present. I will label my arguments either Rebuttal or Defense; Rebuttal is in reference to an argument against Con's contentions, and a Defence is defending my own contention. 

I structure my rebuttals and defenses in the same chronological order that Con has, starting with defenses of my Contention's, then moving on to rebuking Con's arguments. This keeps each round with the debater's arguments first, and the opponent's second. I would ask that Con follows this method of arranging arguments for practicality's sake; however, I am aware that Con has no obligation to such an organization. Please note that any parenthesis within quotes is added text. With all of that housekeeping out of the way this round will proceed in the following:

  • DEFENCE I (Con's V) - COMPREHENSION,
  • DEFENCE II (Con's VI) - WIDER PICTURE
  • DEFENCE III (Con's VII) - RELINK,
  • REBUTTAL I (Con's I & 3) - EDUCATION,
  • REBUTTAL II (Con's 2 & 4) - EFFECTIVE-NESS,


DEFENCE I (Con's V) - COMPREHENSION.
(A.) What is removed from the quote, and (B.) why, when Pro admits the combined definition is “a tad hard to understand?”   (Con's Round 1: Rebuttal V - Point V.a.1)
The Resolution: Abstinence-only sex education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancies - okay then, let's combine all of the definitions I presented in the description, which are clearly accessible to anybody who clicks the debate. The words defined in the description are: Abstinence, Only, Sex Education, Effective, Reducing, Teenage, and Pregnancy. Combining all of the definitions this is what I get: "The fact of not doing something, such as drinking alcohol or having sex used to show that there is a single one or very few of something, or that there are no others a school course about sexual reproduction and sexual feelings successful or achieving the results that you want at to become or to make something become smaller in size, amount, degree, importance, etc, aged between 13 and 19 the state of being pregnant"

Helpfully underlined for closer reading, that answer's A, what did I omit, but honestly, do I have to answer B? The voters, and even my opponent, should have noticed a quite obvious fact about the above-underlined text, it's horribly unwieldy, its even harder to follow, and above all - its literally just the copy-pasted chain of definitions in the order of words that the resolution is in. I would ask the voter a question, why would I misrepresent my own definitions whenever I was the one who chooses and put them in the description. If I was attempting treachery it would not be very effective treachery. So that's why I omitted, stuff, but finally - the point that I put quotation marks around it. Well, that's almost as simple, it was for emphasis. Whenever I want to quote something I put in the grey quote box, whenever I put quotations marks, I'm emphasizing.

Addressing V.a: I did indeed cut out some parts of the word abstinence. I included nearly every single word of the definition of only that I put in that description, and seeing as Con failed to cite a competing definition, that is the definition we are working with. Here's my definition, with the definition of only within it, bolded: "a school course about sexual reproduction and sexual feelings,  a single one or very few of something, or that there are no others, teaching to.. not.. hav(e) sex" Now, the definition of only as cited in the description: "used to show that there is a single one or very few of something, or that there are no others" What words did I so maliciously cut out? "Used to show that there is.." and that was for comprehension. I did; however, shorten the definition of abstinence, to make it specifically relevant to the debate.

Finally, addressing V.a.2... and its nonsense, utter fiction. Con attempts to claim that I'm attempting to obfuscate the topic, here, and ignores the fact that I am literally making the definition more clear. To claim that I am trying to "tip-toe" around the word sex is both irrelevant to the matter at hand, and factually not true, considering I made the debate and emphasized the word sex in the definition that Con criticized. I find this rebuttal lacking in substantiation and relevance. 


DEFENCE II (Con's V1) - WIDER PICTURE.
Pro unjustly waives by saying, “…unless Con can argue that there has been substantial changes to how abstinence only sex education works, that would not actually combat my argument.”  I just did argue that exact point,
Let's say that Con is right, everything from what I argued up until that line is useless, bullhonkey. That wouldn't change the fact that I cited two more studies which support my resolution:  https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/ref/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304896 and https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303367. The first is an study from 2019 which says: "Federal abstinence-only funding had no effect on adolescent birthrates overall but displayed a perverse effect, increasing adolescent birthrates in conservative states". My next source from 2016 concludes: "The majority of evaluations examined abstinence or sexual activity (73%) and condom or contraceptive use (80%). Pregnancy (22%) and frequency of sex (20%) were also common behavioral outcomes and a small number of evaluations examined STI rates and number of sexual partners"

Though I did better sum up the latter in my first round, it is quite telling that Con didn't even touch these studies, my burden of proof, therefore, remains intact. Let's stop pretending for a second though, Con claims, essentially, that the current downtick of teen pregnancies reported by CDC proves that the reporting of the earlier sources are untrue... however note that he fails to quote any further text from the studies provided by me beyond the ones I cited... Furthermore, this is, hilariously enough, the thing that Con decided to note: 
The CDC concluded: “Although reasons for the declines are not totally clear, evidence suggests these declines are due to more teens abstaining from sexual activity, and more teens who are sexually active using birth control than in previous years.”
That's right, Con outright ignored the second part of that sentence, the second complete clause - it reports that teens who are using birth control over the prevailing years is one of the reasons for declining teen pregnancy in accordance with abstinence, that is definitely not from abstinence-only education - as that would only teach abstinence for reducing teen pregnancy. 

However, it would be irresponsible of me to ignore Con's claims, which use a Thought.Co article citing from Guttmacher Institute and OASH, most of the raw information from Guttmacher. I'll let Con sum it up himself for transparency. 
VI.d.3 Clearly, the data demonstrates that abstinence-only education does correlate with reduction in teen pregnancy, refuting Pro’s Contention I conclusion [the “trend” clearly indicates a reduction in teen pregnancies, and that abstinence-only is contributing to it]. Therefore, the Resolution fails.

However, there is a key problem in Con's findings - none of it is casal. None of the research indicated references any kind of causal link between Abstinence-only education and reduced Pregnancy. Showing that the states which have abstinence-only education are below the national average does not actually show that abstinence-only education reduces teen pregnancy - it fails to account for any other measure of what may be reducing teen pregnancy in those states.  Furthermore, the indicated states which represent abstinence only aren't even accurate. Let's pay very close attention to thought.co now: "These 11 states require only that abstinence is covered during sex education:" In other words, they do not only teach abstinence-only education, but that is all that is required... well according to Thought.co, basic fact-checking refutes this.

The state legislation, originally known as AB 329, requires that students in grades seven through twelve receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education at least once in middle school and once in high school. 

The comprehensive education requirement states that the sexual education instruction must include medically accurate information about methods to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including abstinence, contraception, condoms and other methods. 

For brevities sake I will only provide sources for the other states mentioned:

Only 4 of the 11 states listed actually only teach abstinence sex education, and that is pushing it, because some of these four states actually do teach other things aside from abstinence; however, I am giving Con the benefit of the doubt. Do you now see Voters? Assuming that the research is causal the information is incorrect, and by going off the truth of it, it isn't relevant in the first place, because the research does not link a causal relationship between Abstinence only sex educations and reduced teen pregnancy, and basic research will reveal that the information from the Guttmacher is either out of date, or being used by Thought.Co incorrectly. 


DEFENCE III (Con's VIII) - RELINK.
The entirety of Con's rebuttal here is arguing that my logic is unsound, i.e, untrue or not supported. Please notice the fact that Con failed to address two entire studies in my first contention, which would uphold the arguments I made in Contention II (Of course not). Furthermore, it relies on calling my premises "leaking" by pointing out the word "typically" in premise 1. However, they completely forget to include that in my conclusion I only claimed that is is more probable, therefore the "creep" means nothing as the entire syllogism is only arguing that it is more probable that such a thing is true. The entire rebuttal relies on untrue claims and misunderstandings of the type of syllogism being made. 


REBUTTAL I (Con's I & III) - EDUCATION.
By definition, then, abstinence can have nothing but 100% effectiveness if practiced as faithfully as one would practice any other current artificial contraceptive method because it completely avoids the opportunity of pregnancy to occur by coitus. Every other means still engages in coitus, and every other method has percentages of failure of prevention.
This... completely misses the point. I actually agree with Con, IF abstinence is practiced as it was taught, THEN it would clearly be the superior teaching method, it would completely prevent teen pregnancy, I never disputed that never even made an attempt to; because that is not what we are talking about. We are discussing the education of only teaching abstinence, not abstinence in a vacume. According to the data I have presented, abstinence-only education is simply not effective in reducing teen pregnancy. The entire talk of "IF Abstinence was used by teenagers as taught..." Is irrelevant, because it isn't, teenagers don't typically use abstinence education as taught, not by itself anyway. 

 Abstention of sexual activity applies a wider scope of analysis of behavior and decision points of practice to achieve the purpose than slipping on a condom, or popping a pill. In the case of this Resolution, the achievement is a clean dress, not a stained blue dress. Which, do you judge, is the more effective method to achieve the wanted result?
I included these two points in the same rebuttal not just because they are similar in what they want to prove, but because they showcase the same flaw in Con's reasoning: They assume that abstinence is the same thing as abstinence education, 100% effective. Con arbitrarily links the effects of Abstinence in a single case of sex, to how abstinence education affects teen pregnancies in general. Yes, if every single teen practiced abstinence then there would be no teen pregnancy, but that ignores the fact that abstinence-only education fails to do that. In every recorded instance, brought up during this debate, analyzing the casual link between abstinence only sex education and teen pregnancy has found no link to reduction


REBUTTAL II (Con's II & IV) - EFFECTIVENESS.
Therefore, it must be concluded that “reduction of teen pregnancy” is obviously best achieved by abstinence from [prevention by self-motivation] teen sexual activity. Thus, abstinence is the best [most effective] of all choices of contraception. (pretty much agreed)
 
II.b.1 Therefore, in the final analysis, if abstinence is the only lesson taught in prevention of teen pregnancy, it is still the most effective method to be taught in that it blows “reduction” out of competition. It will be evident that it is, by size, amount, degree and importance, the most effective, and not merely more than as effective as other methods to address teen pregnancy.  (Disagree)
This is literally just repeating the arguments from last round (but I do need at least two rebuttals, for symmetry if nothing else). That, in a vacuum, abstinence is the most effective contraception, and therefore if taught will obviously prevent all teen pregnancy. Problem here, we aren't in a vacume, and the data literally says the opposite. It must also be predicated that Con argued "obviously best achieved by abstinence", however, fails to take into consideration teen sexual assault, and therefore does not account for pregnancy which one of the teenagers is forced into. In other words, if Teenagers have no choice over whether or not they don't do sex, then Abstinence is impossible, and this is often the case as cited below: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1601126/

"Two-thirds of a sample of 535 young women from the state of Washington who became pregnant as adolescents had been sexually abused: Fifty-five percent had been molested, 42 percent had been victims of attempted rape and 44 percent had been raped. "

That demonstrates, by lack of degree of failure in the Resolution, that the Resolution fails its all-or-nothing proposition
Well no... Going back a little bit - 
They demonstrate the effective teaching of abstinence, and by so doing, demonstrate that by their conviction, teen pregnancy is reduced. If one in 1,000 are successful, that one example demonstrates that education in successful resistance by abstinence, and one example is sufficient to prove my BoP. If the ratio of success against failure is higher, the effectiveness is only greater: fewer teens become pregnant
They demonstrate that abstinence can be effective, in individual cases - not teen pregnancies as a whole. On a whole, Abstinence-only sex education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancies, according to the studies provided, abstinence-only sex education fails to reduce teen pregnancies. We are talking about the education of it, not the practice of it. This fact should be clear.


CONTENTION I (TRENDS) - CONT.
Since I have more room, I thought I should add in some of the studies I decided to leave out of the first round because of space:

"While theoretically fully protective, abstinence intentions often fail, as abstinence is not maintained. AOUM programs are not effective in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse or changing other behaviors. Conversely, many comprehensive sexuality education programs successfully delay initiation of sexual intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors. AOUM programs inherently provide incomplete information and are often neglectful to sexually active adolescents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents; pregnant and parenting adolescents; and survivors of sexual assault."

"Trump administration has spent three years advocating for harmful and ineffective abstinence-only programs. These efforts ignore the fact that contraception is driving declines in adolescent pregnancy and fail to serve young people’s broader sexual health needs. State and federal sex education advocates should continue to resist abstinence-only approaches to sex education, while simultaneously arguing for more expansive forms of sex education."

"The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) finds insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education interventions delivered to adolescents to prevent pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Evidence is considered insufficient because of inconsistent results across studies."

It is clear where the trends point, and it's not favorable for Abstinence-only education.


CONCLUSIONS.
Con has failed to bring relevant and/or substantiated objections to the contentions levied to affirm the resolution - Furthermore, none of their contentions substantiated the claim that Abstinence-only education is effective at reducing teen pregnancy. There were claims that it did in individual cases, which is true, however, it does not prove how the education of abstinence is actually effective. There was another attempt to establish a correlative link between abstinence-only sex education and teen pregnancy reductions; however, the attempt fell short by its basis in nonfactual information. In summary, Con has failed to fulfill their burden of proof.

Back to Con
Con
Resolved: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
 
First, some maintenance on my R1. In argument VI.b.3, I discuss the continuous decrease in percentage of teen pregnancy and cite CDC data that for the first 17 years of this century, the decrease of incident was 61.4%, and that drop occurred in the “21% century.”  The typo should read as the “21st century.”
 
Additional housekeeping: Pro’s request for structure of debate arguments is one which I am already doing as a personal choice to structure my argument rounds. I accept his proposal, although I suggest a revision of nomenclature. Pro’s suggestion of argument by “rebuke” is a little offensive compared with the much calmer, and just as effective use of “rebuttal,” a term applied by the DArt Help Center policies. My own convention has begun to address, arguments, first, in each round [when new argument is allowed through all rounds, including the last, but not in last rounds where new argument is declared forbidden by the initiator], and then rebuttals/defenses/conclusions responding to the opponent’s previous round[s], in any round. Accusations of dropped arguments, other than in the next-to-the-last round, giving both opponents ample opportunity to rebut/defend, have little integrity.
 
I Argument: Ineffective Resolution
 
I.a I suggest that Pro’s argument is flawed by it’s Resolution, because that Resolution, as quoted above, does not go for the throat of the beast that is teen pregnancy. In effect, Pro brings a spoon to dig a building foundation. Moreover, a foundation to be dug into the granite bedrock that is the whole of lower Manhattan. The flaw is declaring “reduction”  rather than “prevention”  of teen pregnancy, as argued in my R1, I, II, III, IV, VI.
 
I.b Whereas, my R1, I.a – I.c has argued that reduction is best achieved by complete, 100% prevention, and not merely reducing from some percentage of teen pregnancies to a lower, but still evident percentage. Refer to my argument of R1, III.a.4, or better, the comparative statistics presented in my R1, VI.d.2, that demonstrate the superiority of prevention over reduction, not to mention that abstinence-only rebuts the Resolution according to these R1 arguments.
 
I.c According to the CDC, the current percentage of teen pregnancies in the U.S. is 17.7 per 1,000 in the age group 15 to 19, the closest to the age group Pro identified as definition of his term “teen,”[1]  i.e., 13 – 19.  To Pro’s Resolution, a reduction from 18:1,000 [rounded] would be satisfied if the ratio were reduced to 17:1,000, or even halved to 9:1,000, but that reduction still suffers from the incident of teen pregnancy, doesn’t it? Is that really “effective” to a size, amount, degree, or importance, as Pro defined “reducing” in the Description, compared to the effect of complete abstinence? No. I would expect that parents and children would both want to achieve complete prevention than mere reduction; it is that important.
 
I.d If there is a single argument by education of 100% effectiveness [0: 1,000], of what need are arguments of lesser effect? Abstinence, by definition, when successfully practiced,  is 100% effective for each individual. Even if unsuccessfully practiced by percentage, those numbers of successful practice still achieve total effectiveness of 100%. What need, therefore, of lesser effective contraceptive methods? There is the flaw in Pro’s Resolution and argument. Is there a need, for example, of use of a condom, or a pill, or any other artificial contraceptive, if one is not going to engage in sexual activity at all? If for no other reason, a condom is just one more article of “clothing” necessary to remove for practical urination purposes, unless one is proficiently satisfied in wetting one’s self.
 
I.d Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails in its own language, since the effect  of reduction,  two words of prominent use in the Resolution, is clearly not as effective  in reducing teen pregnancy  to the degree  of importance  as demonstrated by abstention.  Any supporting argument Pro offers fails as well in that it does not account for the failure of the Resolution, itself. That, is, unless Pro violates the essence of the Resolution, but that is creep, and doing so will result in moving the goal post. That is a failure of argument.  Unfortunately, we will see the evidence of Pro's creep later in this round.
 
II. Rebuttal: the creep of adding verbiage, and my argument of “tip-toe”
 
II.a I accept Pro’s defense [R2, I] of adding to the definition of “teaching to… not… have sex” [from my R1, V]. I also accept Pro’s defense against my charge of lack of use of “sex” [from my R1, V.a.2.] Both matters are closed.
 
III Rebuttal: Pro’s Defense II – “Wider picture”
 
III.a Pro cited two sources in his R1, [9], [10], stating that, “I will only be analzying the data suggesting the content of this resolution is true…”  and repeated these sources in Pro’s R2, declaring that my argument dismissed these sources, with Pro further saying, “it wouldn't change the fact that I cited two more studies which support my resolution…”  and re-cited the same sources, Pro’s R1, [9], [10], in R2.
 
III.a.1 If only Pro had analyzed the data, in either round, which he did not present, and therefore made no traceable analysis of data. Neither did Pro assure that the two sources [9], [10] could actually be accessed for others to see the data and the sources’ own analysis of same without having to purchase a download at a minimum price of $24 for each article cited [two at $48]. Excuse me if I balk at such expense. Readers likely must put out, as well; not a friendly debate argument request. I therefore reject Pro’s sources as valid [they cannot be verified], and, thus, the entire defense of them.
 
III.b Pro charges in R2, Defense II, that I omitted quoting a citation to its conclusion. I am pleased Pro accessed the source [free of charge] to examine it. Yes, I ignored the trailing portion of a sentence that acknowledged that more teens actively engaging in sex are using birth control methods. I acknowledge the extended quote. I did not include it due to word-count purposes, but Pro’s defense does not preclude the quoted portion of the full sentence, that more teens are abstaining from sexual activity. That,  after all, is my BoP. Please excuse if I don’t contribute to Pro’s job, too.
 
III.c Pro also charges in the R2, Defense II, that I do not, nor does my source [my R1, source [15], ThoughCo.com, indicate a causal argument. Cause? As an action has direct linkage, or, as my source spells it, that, “…abstinence-only education does correlate  with the reduction in teen pregnancy…”[2]  Will readers conclude that a causal relationship is not correlation?
 
III.d Pro then cites California legislation AB 329 that comprehensive sex education is required in California. What Pro does not tell you is that CA, and 25 other States, from district to district, vary in their actual sex education curricula; that these States, 52% of them, depending on school district, offer both artificial contraceptive plus abstinence education, and abstinence-only education, according to the data from ThoughtCo.com,[3] as noted in my R1, VI.d.1, item 3 argument.
 
III.d.1 Pro cites CO as another State matching CA’s legislation. However, CO is another of the 26 States, according to ThoughtCo.com,[4]  offering both artificial contraceptives plus abstinence education, and abstinence-only education, depending on district.
 
III.d.2 Pro then lists five other States [HI, MD, NM, VT, & WV], all of which also, coincidentally, offer both education types as CA and CO, [VA does as well, but Pro does not mention VA in his R2 rebuttal] by district.[5].  Pro fails to drill down to district level, the level at which school boards operate, to obtain district-to-district reported education methods and data collection according to his sources. My one source, referenced as [2], [3], [4], above, reports district variation in education.
 
III.d.3 Pro concluded with another “causal relationship” argument, ignoring what happens at district level. Pro ignores, or denies, that some districts in all 8 States, [7 by Pro]  do, in fact, conduct both contraceptive and abstinence-only education.  The non-causal argument fails. Therefore, Pro’s entire Defense II fails.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro’s Defense III, Relink [or, the ‘of course not’ syllogism]
 
Pro refers to this as my “VIII.” I do not have VIII argument/rebuttals in R1. It is VII.
 
IV.a Housekeeping notwithstanding, Pro argues again for the two sources he cited in Pro R1, Contention I, and that they rebut my syllogism rebuttal of R1. Refer to the rebuttal above, III.a, III.a.1. Type of syllogism? The type of syllogism used is the most simple, making it, often, the easiest to mess up with lack of logic. Pro lacks, as explained fully in my R1, VII.a, VII.b. Case closed; my rebuttal of the syllogism in R1, VII.a, VII.b stands.
 
V. Defense: My R1, II & IV: Effectiveness of abstinence-only education
 
V.a Pro’s R2 Rebuttal II contends that my R1, II & IV are “…just repeating the same arguments from the last round.”  As if, to date, I’ve argued more than one round? By my count, this is just my R2, which, until I publish it, Pro has not seen. So, what “repeat?” 
 
V.b Pro claims my argument that, “…in a vacuum, abstinence is the most effective contraception, and therefore if taught will obviously prevent all teen pregnancy.”  No, I did not argue that prevention of all teen pregnancy will be achieved by merely being taught, in a vacuum, or not. No, I argued that students must comply with what is taught. Behavior cannot be forced, in a vacuum, or not. Otherwise, we would have no need of reduction of teen pregnancy. Behavior is the key, and the correct behavior, in my debate BoP, abstinence-only, is what is expected, but no one predicts 100% behavior compliance. Pro incorrectly argues that I expect teaching, alone, will yield effectiveness. Nothing is effective, even by artificial contraception, until students act of their own volition. I don’t know Pro’s “ivory tower” expectations of academia, but, as was stated in Ghostbusters, the movie,[6]  “In the private sector, they expect results.”  Results are my argument, too.
 
V.b.1 Further, arguments regarding sexual abuse are clearly outside the four corners of this debate.  That is Resolution creep, moving the goal post, and that is a failed argument. 
 
V.c Pro then argues his inaccessible two sources [see III.a, III.a.1, above], yet again; those which allegedly demonstrate that abstinence-only education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy. I have shown evidence by accessible sources that it is. See my source R1 [15]/R2, [2]. Readers, caveate lector.
 
V.c.1, And, yes, we are talking sex education, but how is any education measured for effectiveness? By telling the teachers, “Good job?” No, by measurement of teaching results, indicated by subsequent student behavior. After all, is teen pregnancy the result of not  behaving according to instruction, whether the education is artificial contraception-only, or abstinence-only, or contraceptive and abstinence, combined, or nothing? Yes, it is. Therefore, Pro’s argument, and Resolution, fail by the charge that I argue for teaching, only, as a measure of effectiveness.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro’s R2, Contention 1
 
VI.a Pro brings another source [finally, one that is accessible] to support the Pro argument that abstinence-only is not effective. However, the Abstract of that article states, “While theoretically fully protective, abstinence intentions often fail, as abstinence is not maintained.”[7]  [bold added].  I have not argued differently. Again, we’re back to student behavior based on instruction, by their own free will. Note the bolded word, often.  If Pro’s sourced argument were “always fail,” the Resolution would be correct, and Pro’s argument should prevail. But, it does not say, “always,” does it? Therefore, I have my window of effectiveness, because “often fail”  implies there are students who can maintain their intentions of abstinence. MY BoP is not a level or degree of effectiveness. As argued in my R1, IV, “By the Resolution, even a 1:1,000 reduction demonstrates effectiveness.” Pro has not rebutted this argument. This is what I mean by Pro’s Resolution failure; it expects effectiveness means “all or nothing.” Nope. It is not effective, even by Pro’s definition of “reduction,” if the expectation of “all or nothing” is the targeted goal.
 
VI.a.1 Pro then argues that the “trends” are not favorable to my BoP. But “trends” are the antithesis of “all or nothing.” That is not a false argument when the Resolution is so specific. Pro argues with himself because “trends” indicate two outcomes of education: full or partial compliance with education. Even partial compliance means there is effectiveness in abstinence-only education. Therefore, the Resolution, and Pro’s argument, fails.
 
VI.b Pro cites another Guttmacher article[8]  declaring the Trump administration funding allocation in 2020 for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program [TPPP] turned away from abstinence-only education, saying that the Trump administration is “undermining TPPP.” Nice article, but it’s specific link to the HHS Office of Population Affairs[9]  contains no mention of “abstinence,” “abstinence-only,” “sex education” beyond the subject of STDs, or even “Trump administration,” or “undermining TPPP,” on the link’s first page of information [in the section, “Adolescent Health.”] Nor is any reference to these terms found in sections, “Grant Programs,” or “Evaluation & Research,” which all mention TPPP, and both of which concern Guttmcher’s issue of funding TPPP. Lacking any of these references, the Guttmacher’s proverbial slip is showing: an agenda-driven article meant to imply, without confirmation on the HHS website noted, that these recommendations were for fiscal 2020, or 2021, for that matter [knowing that fiscal 2020 began the previous October 2019, therefore, after the proverbial cows have left the proverbial funding barn]. The internally sourced HHS site does not confirm the effect Guttmacher ‘s article claims.
 
VI.c Pro adds a final source for his argument.[10]  The referenced organization, the CPSTF, claims it is “a nonfederal panel of public health,” but it was organized in 1996 by HHS, a federal, cabinet-level agency. How nonfederal is that, exactly? Pro did not read the first paragraph of this panel’s findings, to wit, “The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) finds insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education interventions delivered to adolescents to prevent pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Evidence is considered insufficient because of inconsistent results across studies.”  Note the source’s use of “prevent,” and not “reduce;” a goal post shift by Pro.
 
VI.d The link, “insufficient evidence” provides a definition of that term, to wit, “The available studies do not provide sufficient evidence to determine if the intervention is, or is not, effective.”  I take the finding at its word: The source cannot confirm Pro’s Resolution. Therefore, it fails, as do all statements in Pro’s Conclusion, to wit:
 
VI.d.1 I have brought relevant, substantiated objections to deny the Resolution: to wit, the R2, I, III though VII, inclusive, all with substantiating sources: R2, I [1], R2, III.a rebutting Pro’s R1, [9], [10],  R2, VI.a [7], R2, VI.b [8], and some in R1.
 
VI.d.2 I have offered substantiating sources to my claim of abstinence-only effectiveness, to wit, R1, I [1], [2], [3], R2, VI.b, R2, VI.c
 
VI.d.3 Pro claims my BoP must prove “how… abstinence-only education is effective…” That is Resolution creep; goal post shift. There is no “how” requirement in the Resolution. I am required only to demonstrate “effective,”  and I have. See VI.d.1, above. 
 
VI.d.4  Pro claims my correlative link between abstinence-only education and teen pregnancy reduction is based on “non-factual information.” I offered my substantiating source in R1, VI.d [15], and R2, III.c [2]
 
In summary, my BoP is proven by substantiating sources, the which Pro cannot seem to find to fully substantiate Pro's Resolution; an "all or nothing" Resolution. My R2 is closed. I pass R3 to Pro.
 
 


Round 3
Pro
RESOLUTION: Abstinence-only sex education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
POSITION:Pro


STRUCTURE: I will be using the same structure as last time - please note that due to time restrictions this rebuttal will be briefer than my usual arguments. Furthermore, the entire "dropped arguments are irrelevant unless it's in the next-to-last round"... no, no they are not - dropping arguments only to pick them up towards the very end gives your opponent less time to argue them, and doing it purposely is akin to trying to reduce what you're opponent can argue back - if Con is admitting to purposely dropping argument than that should constitute a penalty in conduct at the very least.


DEFENCE I (Con's III) - WIDER PICTURE.
First, I would like to note that despite Con's entire argument criticizing my sources he does not actually quote any of my sources. Furthermore, only one of the two sources I cite has any pay-wall, and the information I quoted was taken from the abstract of the text. Due to the rigor of the sourcing of claims for the argument I do not see the need to even access the full article- since it blatantly supports literally every other study regarding this. Voters, recall this from Round 1:
That also appears to be very conclusive, unfortunately for analysis, the rest of the study is locked behind a pay wall, never fear - we have the powers of references, and I am particularly interested in one. By Feldman Farb A and Margolis AL - The teen pregnancy prevention program (2010–2015): synthesis of impact findings [10]:
"All of the program evaluations were rigorous designs; 37 (90%) were RCTs, and four were rigorous quasi-experimental designs (QEDs; Table 2). Twenty-two evaluations used cluster-level random assignment, and 15 used individual-level random assignment. Tier 1 consisted of seven individual-level RCTs, 10 cluster RCTs, and 2 QEDs. Tier 2 consisted of eight individual-level RCTs, 12 cluster RCTs, and two QEDs. Forty-nine percent of the evaluations were conducted in a school setting (during or after school), 20% in community-based organizations, 7% in clinics, and 5% online (Table 2). Fewer than half of the evaluations provided a program to the control group, examples include health and nutrition classes, college or career training, safe driving, and mentoring. Most (53%) of the evaluations compared their program to “business as usual.” Business as usual ranged from no other sexual or reproductive health education, to fairly generous sexual or reproductive health education. Evaluations were conducted with a fairly even split of participants in middle school (29%), high school (29%), and high school and older (24%), and a smaller proportion spanning both middle- and high-school (17%; Table 2). The majority of evaluations examined abstinence or sexual activity (73%) and condom or contraceptive use (80%). Pregnancy (22%) and frequency of sex (20%) were also common behavioral outcomes and a small number of evaluations examined STI rates and number of sexual partners"

That is a big confusing paragrapgh, but it summarizedly finds that abstinence only sex education finds that students will still particapate in sex at majority rates (re: just read the bolded setence there). The study cites Table 2, which, topically, shows the percentages discussed in the paragraph above. The methods here are rigorously tested, and found that earlier postive results (which might be subject to Con's sourcing) was found to be incorrect due to expansions of the study. This fact is mentioned under "PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS" [10]:
"Research across many fields has demonstrated that when programs are scaled up, as in effectiveness or replication studies, they often don’t find the same positive outcomes the original studies found.2–6 The number has been estimated to be as low as 10% to 20% of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that result in the same significant positive impacts as found in the original study.6,7"

Which was dropped by Con in both rounds 1 and 2; consider this point dropped - it is not behind a paywall, and I thoroughly explained its link and relevance to the debate. This is clear as can be. Furthermore, I included three more sources to bolster my arguments, as I was lacking in the room in round 1 - I will acknowledge these as Con does. 

Next, we see a little issue for Con, and it's a fairly simple problem with most beginning debaters: that is - correlation does not infer causation. To make an example: Ground becomes wet whenever somebody uses a hose on it - but does that necessarily mean that the grass which is wet was wet because of a water hose, that has not been demonstrated. Now if you were to have, a video, or a schedule in which the owner of the hose watered the grass and then presented that in concurrence with other evidence, then that would be casual evidence. However, the mere fact that water hoses can wet grass does not mean it does - correlation does not equal causation. The wetness could simply be an example of morning dew, perhaps it rained overnight, there are a plethora of other explanations. 

Just because it is possible that something was caused by something else does not mean that it was - there are a plethora of other explanations - for consideration the Cambridge Dictionary Definition of Correlation [1]: "a connection or relationship between two or more factsnumbers, etc." and for comparison, the Cambridge definition of Causation [2]: "the process of causing something to happen or exist". Notice voters, and Con, that these two are not necessarily the same. I could be wearing a white shirt, and that day be sick - establishing a correlation between my white shirt and being sick, but that does not mean that that white shirt caused me to be sick. Con evidently does not understand this difference - given the following at least:

"ThoughCo.com, indicate a causal argument. Cause? As an action has direct linkage, or, as my source spells it, that, “…abstinence-only education does correlate  with the reduction in teen pregnancy…”[2]  Will readers conclude that a causal relationship is not correlation?" (Con's Round 3, III Rebuttal, IIIc)
Note that Con does not provide a source for that definition of cause, and the definition I have provided is definitionally more topical - as it addresses this truth that I explained before, and will source further here [3]:
"For observational data, correlations can’t confirm causation...Correlations between variables show us that there is a pattern in the data: that the variables we have tend to move together. However, correlations alone don’t show us whether or not the data are moving together because one variable causes the other. It’s possible to find a statistically significant and reliable correlation for two variables that are actually not causally linked at all. In fact, such correlations are common! Often, this is because both variables are associated with a different causal variable, which tends to co-occur with the data that we’re measuring."
Note that Thought.Co, as reliant on Guttmacher Institute's data is observational, given the precursor to the data released in the report [4]:
"Beginning in the 1970s, concerns over adolescent pregnancy—and later, HIV/AIDS—galvanized widespread public support for sex education in schools. Most states currently have a policy requiring HIV education, usually in conjunction with broader sex education. Meanwhile, as debate over the relative merits of abstinence-only-until-marriage messages versus more comprehensive approaches has intensified, states have enacted a number of specific content requirements. Growing acknowledgment of young people’s sexuality has popularized instruction on life skills, with most states now requiring instruction on healthy relationships and the prevention of sexual violence."
No mention of any research whatsoever into the causal links between these things, instead they take a neutral position regarding our resolution and have no correlation to report. Seeing as Thought.Co only gets its information from Guttmacher and another background source, there is no substantiation of Con's claims that correlation implys causation. Con's argument lacks a valid impact to his claim.

To the next issue, the supposed "district rulings" of these states. I find such an argument, irelevent. The state law clearly indicates that these districts within the state have a required learning of comprehensive learning, and the only sourcing Con provides is thought.co, which, as previously investigated, only links Guttmatcher. I would request that Con explain the reason we, as in the voters and your opponent, should accept your source over mine. Furthermore - the fact that these states are not entirely abstinence-only sex education, and in fact are majority comprehensive sex education means that this data does not support Pro's claim which goes against the resolution.

TLDR: The defence of the initial rebuttal was lacking because the lack of a pay wall for the information cited, the claim that his inital argument is lacking substantition due to the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and finally a repeated assertion of his argument, relying on Thought.co's data which has already been dismissed.


DEFENCE II (Con's IV) - RELINK.
For reference of the voter:

PREMISE: Abstinence-only education does not typically teach about other measures of preventing birth aside from abstinence
PREMISEIF such a scenario occurs where a teenager isn't abstinent, THEN they would not know other ways to prevent pregnancy
CONCLUSION: Therefore, IF Teenagers do not remain abstinent after the education, THEN they are more likely to become or induce pregnancy
We are arguing for the validity (how the premises logically follow to the conclusion) and the soundness (the validity and truth of the premises presented) of the above mentioned syllogism. Apologises for the incorrect referencing - regardless I would ask that Con label specific arguments without roman numerals inside the arguemnt itself, while it is helpful for his opponent (myself) for reference, it needlessly confuses voters or other readers - it discourages voting - which I do not think my opponent or I want. 

Con fails to introduce new argument regarding the "lack of logic" in the mentioned syllogism, simply referencing their round 1 arugment, which I have already rebuked. Furthermore Con relies on the argument preceeding it (The entire: Wider Picture back & forth) and ignores that I also gave reference at the latter end of the second round (Round 2, Pro, CONTENTION I. CONT).


DEFENCE III (Con's VI) -  CONTENTION I (Trends) cont.
"If Pro’s sourced argument were “always fail,” the Resolution would be correct, and Pro’s argument should prevail. But, it does not say, “always,” does it? Therefore, I have my window of effectiveness, because “often fail”  implies there are students who can maintain their intentions of abstinence. MY BoP is not a level or degree of effectiveness."
The resolution for voters: "Resolved: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy", Indeed, Con's burden is to demonstrate that abstinence only sex education is effective in reducing teen pregnancies - recall the definition of effective: "successful or achieving the results that you want" - the result would be lowering the amount of teen pregnancies. Therefore, in order for Con's arguments to be substantive it would have to be true that the amount of teens which "maintain their intentions of abstinence" outweigh the trends which demonstrate that there are actually increases of teen pregnancies - you see - I have aready answered this question: Recall the syllogism of last round:
PREMISE: Abstinence-only education does not typically teach about other measures of preventing birth aside from abstinence
PREMISEIF such a scenario occurs where a teenager isn't abstinent, THEN they would not know other ways to prevent pregnancy
CONCLUSION: Therefore, IF Teenagers do not remain abstinent after the education, THEN they are more likely to become or induce pregnancy
Therefore, there is an increase in teen pregnancies which far out weighs Con's statistically insignificant figure, which hasn't, this far, even been presented. Only a pedantic argument regarding wording - typically such things are to control for knowledge claims, because they are scientific they do not work with the total number of teens who have recieved such an education and whether they had pregnancies - it is simply impossible to conduct such an survey with reliable and ethical results. This is a control word, Con's pedantic argument is irrelevant. 


Lacking any of these references, the Guttmacher’s proverbial slip is showing: an agenda-driven article meant to imply, without confirmation on the HHS website noted, that these recommendations were for fiscal 2020, or 2021, for that matter [knowing that fiscal 2020 began the previous October 2019, therefore, after the proverbial cows have left the proverbial funding barn]. The internally sourced HHS site does not confirm the effect Guttmacher ‘s article claims.
Con is aruging that because he did not find links, that the article must be biased... please explain that logic - furthermore - the article is hyperlinked - it is not listing sources. However, closer investigation into the claims which I am interested lead me here: "https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us-adolescent-pregnancy-trends-2013" which is a study providing evidence for the claim of the article. Con's nonrigourous search for searching iregardless, this entire section is dedicated to arguing that there is a possibility that abstinence only sex education reduces teen pregnancy - which is untrue, and does not actually fulfill Con's burden. 


REBUTTAL I (Con's I) INEFFECTIVE RESOLUTION.
" Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails in its own language, since the effect  of reduction,  two words of prominent use in the Resolution, is clearly not as effective  in reducing teen pregnancy  to the degree  of importance  as demonstrated by abstention.  Any supporting argument Pro offers fails as well in that it does not account for the failure of the Resolution, itself. That, is, unless Pro violates the essence of the Resolution, but that is creep, and doing so will result in moving the goal post. That is a failure of argument.  Unfortunately, we will see the evidence of Pro's creep later in this round."
The fact that there is a resolution which could "eliminate" teen-pregnancy is not relevant. The resolution seeks to reduce teen-pregnancy, the two terms are seperate - eliminating teen pregnancy is firstly statistically and practically impossible to eliminate teen pregnancy that would fit within our ethical considerations. It also doesn't acknolwedge the fact that the average age of consent in America is 16-17, which could still result in completely legal teen pregnancy - therefore eliminating teen pregnanct is not the goal of the resolution. This argument fails because it is backed by Con's assumptions of the resolutions. The argument relies on abstinence only sex education will deliver teens who apply it 100% of the time - This is untrue, abstinence-only sex education does not reduce teen pregnancy, perhaps abstinence would, but not the education of abstinence. 



REBUTTAL II (Con's V) EFF. ABST. ONLY. EDU..
 And, yes, we are talking sex education, but how is any education measured for effectiveness? By telling the teachers, “Good job?” No, by measurement of teaching results, indicated by subsequent student behavior. After all, is teen pregnancy the result of not  behaving according to instruction, whether the education is artificial contraception-only, or abstinence-only, or contraceptive and abstinence, combined, or nothing? Yes, it is. Therefore, Pro’s argument, and Resolution, fail by the charge that I argue for teaching, only, as a measure of effectiveness.
Con repeats the argument for the third time (Btw Con whenever you make the same argument twice without changing it up you are, in fact, repeating an arguemnt), but still misses the point. Let's look at the definition of education: "the process of teaching or learningespecially in a school or college, or the knowledge that you get from this:" therefore the entire process of teaching abstinence only sex education is simply not substantive in reducing teen pregnancy, even if Con show's the system is flawed, that would be supporting my argument. As I am arguing that the process of teaching teens abstinence only is not effective at reducing teen prengancy. It does not matter if it is being taught incorrectly - as the point is that IF you want to call the current abstinence only sex education flawed, then that is the education we are discussing, and yeah... it doesn't reduce teen pregnancy. Regardless of how Con argues the point it is irreleveant or suporting my resolution. 


CONCLUSION:
Con has not succiently argued their resolution, and I have upheld mine.


SOURCES:
Con
Resolved: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
 
Maintenance: Pro misread my ‘structure’ commentary on “dropped arguments,” complaining that I could leave a Pro argument unanswered until my last round, leaving no ability to respond by Pro. No, I did not say in my last round. I said,Accusations of dropped arguments, other than in the next-to-the-last round,giving both opponents ample opportunity to rebut/defend, have little integrity.”  As this is round 3 of a 4-round debate, I will respond to Pro arguments in this round, and let voters determine my overall success of argument/rebuttal, and Pro has the opportunity to respond to my R3 in R4, by defense of previous round arguments, but, by Pro’s rules, no new arguments. I oppose Pro’s assumption of how voters should vote on any feature of this debate, other than in a last-round appeal for a vote, as tampering with voters, specifically in this case, to encourage assessment of conduct as noted in Pro’s R3, Structure argument. I request that Pro please cease and desist.
 
I Argument: Resolution and argument failure by ignorance
 
I.a I suggest that the Resolution is flawed by ignoring that avoiding sexual intercourse is a possible, and successful-to-a-degree alternative. That education in artificial contraceptives also demonstrates a successful-to-a-degree alternative, is not rebutted by Con. However, Pro has not argued for the mastery of self-control, because he does not acknowledge that some teens continue to engage coitus with no contraceptive whatsoever. I will do so.
 
I.b The ability of a teen, by Pro’s definition, to abstain from sex is obvious in the numbers of teens who do so. According to the CDC, from 2010 to 2015, the numbers of males and females, aged 15 to 19, engaging in sexual activity were 44% and 42%, respectively.[1]
 
I.b.1 This means, of course, that 56% of males, and 58% of females, did not engage in sexual activity within those same years; a majority in both cases. If more teens are not engaging in sexual activity than are, this speaks clearly to Con’s BoP: that abstinence is successful, or, in the context of the Resolution, “effective.” Is that due to formal education, family values, or personal choice in addition to the influence of the first two? 
 
I.b.2 The fact is, more teens are abstaining than not. It speaks for itself. 
 
I.b.3 “The progress the nation has made over the last few decades in reducing teen pregnancy has been extraordinary. After years of increases in the 1970s and 1980s, the teen pregnancy rate peaked in 1990 and has declined steadily since.1”  Further, “Today, teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates have reached historic lows. What is more, teen pregnancy rates have fallen in all 50 states and among all racial and ethnic groups.”[2]
 
I.b.3.A The above quote is further extended in the article to explain that the reduction is due to two causes:[3]
 
1. Fewer teens are engaging in coitus [abstention] and, 
2. More teens are using other contraceptive methods.
 
Both  arguments apply. Both  demonstrate effective approaches to reducing teen pregnancy. Let us observe that the first quote was from CDC, a respected source. The second was from Pro’s favored source, Guttmacher. Pro’s Resolution, therefore, fails. 
 
II Argument: Failure by incorrect motivation to abstain
II.a On average, authentic or traditional abstinence curricula devote 53.7 percent of their page content to abstinence-related material. In addition, these curricula devote 17.4 percent of their content to the subjects of healthy relationships and the benefits of marriage, both of which directly reinforce the main theme of teen abstinence. Authentic abstinence curricula allocate zero percent of their content to promoting contraception.”[4]

II.a.1 The above quote from a study by the Heritage Foundation that discusses “Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Authentic Abstinence” compares the relative curricula of these types of sex education. It concludes that the authentic abstinence curricula does more comprehensive education into the opposing method, i.e., contraceptives, than does the contraceptive method of curricula to discuss abstinence. “Authentic,” in the vernacular of the article, refers to abstinence-only education.
 
II.a.1.A “Overall, comprehensive sex-ed curricula allocate six times more content to the goal of promoting contraception than to the goal of promoting abstinence.”[5]  By contrast, contraceptive sex education… curricula devote only 4.7% of their page content to the topic of abstinence…”[6]
 
II.b Therefore, teens are more successful, by their own motivation to abstain, and by abstinence-only, and abstinence-plus [artificial contraceptives] education to prevent teen pregnancy, and/or by family values, and by their own chosen self-control, or by any combination of these. 
 
II.c As II.a suggests above, abstinence-only education devotes 0% of time to artificial contraceptives. A 0% risk needs no further discussion of methods of higher risk, and the data [cited in my R1, VI.d.1] from Thoughtco.com demonstrates this fact. 
 
II.d Therefore, Pro’s resolution fails because, regardless of motivation, teens are engaging in less sexual activity now than before, therefore, resulting in fewer teen pregnancies, and the success of higher use of artificial contraceptives and abstinence is demonstrating a reduction in teen pregnancies over the last 20 years. As Pro’s own cited R2 source[7]   concluded, “The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) finds insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education interventions delivered to adolescents to prevent pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Evidence is considered insufficient because of inconsistent results across studies.” 
 
II.d.1 If the evidence is inconclusive by this source, it cannot support Pro’s specific Resolution and resulting arguments, even though this CPSTF study appears to rebut both CDC and Guttmacher. I say “appears” because one needs to drill down on what CPSTF concludes: insufficient evidence. So, If CDC and Guttmacher do conclude they have sufficient evidence, who is one to believe? 
 
II.d.2 How about simple results: teens who do not engage in sexual activity, i.e., they abstain, do not get pregnant. 100% of them do not get pregnant. Any other artificial contraceptive cannot claim that 100% effectiveness, no matter how some agenda tries to twist the data. Abstention’s effectiveness speaks for itself. And, since it is clear that education in contraceptives-only, contraceptives plus abstention, and abstention-only is taking place across the country, there are verifiable results of avoiding teen pregnancy, and a clear effective winner emerges: abstinence-only. 
 
II.d.3 After all, the Resolution speaks to no education whatsoever but for abstinence-only. If Pro’s Resolution ignores the other types of sexual education we know is taking place, Pro is putting all eggs in one basket, taking an all-or-nothing approach, and ignores that teen pregnancy, even by his own source [Guttmacher], is being reduced by abstinence-only education. That Pro introduces a conflicting source [CPSTF] is on him. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails.
 
III Argument: What is abstinence, and why is it an effective educational tactic
 
III.a I will re-visit a source.[8]  used in my R1, I, to wit,  https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/abstinence.html.  The source list a series of questions: 
1.     What is abstinence? 
2.     How does abstinence work? 
3.     How well does abstinence work?
4.     Does abstinence help prevent STDs?
5.     Who practices abstinence?
 
III.a.1 I will address questions 1 – 3, and 5. The question of STDs resides outside the four corners of the debate Resolution.
 
III.a.1.AWhat is abstinence?   Abstinence is the complete avoidance of sexual contact; “choosing to not have sex.”
 
III.a.1.BHow does abstinence work?   It is the most basic, simple form of birth control; if two people avoid sex, there is no potential for sperm to fertilize an ovum, therefore, for a girl does not become pregnant.
 
III.a.1.CHow well does abstinence work?  Abstinence, when faithfully and consistently practiced, is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Every other form of artificial contraception has some percentage of failure to reduce teen pregnancy, whether reduction, or prevention is the intent.
 
III.a.1.DWho practices abstinence?  By individual choice to do so; everyone who wants to avoid becoming or causing pregnancy to occur with 100% effective results.
 
III.b Therefore, having an education in abstinence-only practice, even lacking coursework in the use of artificial contraceptives, the student dedicated to avoiding sexual relations will succeed in the practice of abstinence with 100% effective results in preventing teen pregnancy. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution fails. Can my argument of the success, the effectiveness of abstinence-only education be any more conclusive? That is, after all, the sum of my BoP. As said, I need only show effectiveness of reduction, not the complete prevention of teen pregnancy, but prevention is, in fact, the result of applied abstinence. Show me the data that an education in the use of a condom, or a pill, is as effective in its practical, behavioral use.
 
IV Rebuttal: Pro’s R3, Def. I, Wider Picture “[Con] does not actually quote any of my sources” 
 
IV.a No, I did not cite from the first source from Pro’s R2, Def. II, for the reason I stated; that the source is practically inaccessible. That Pro cited the Abstract of that source is fine, but the Abstract, itself, makes a declarative statement, which Pro argues as definitive proof of Pro’s BoP, but is not, within the Abstract, justified by any supporting data. 
 
IV.a.1 It is as if Pro argues, by citation, “Abstinence-only education is not effective because little green men from Mars do not genuflect.” One might believe such an argument, but it is hardly supportable by any data to which I, or voters, have reasonable access. Therefore the citation, and its Abstract, were, in my R2, and now in my R3, rebutted. Yes, I did not rebut in R1. This is a 4-round rebuttable debate. 
 
IV.b The second source in Pro’s R2, Def. II “Wider Picture,” was erringly noted in my R2, III.a.1 as inaccessible. I acknowledge my error. But, by Pro’s quotation of that source in R3, Def I, he later acknowledges it is “confusing.” I agree. It lists a number of evaluations/studies in a “Table 2.” Pro cites, in bolded text a sentence I need not repeat, but Pro concludes from it that it demonstrates that a “majority” of thus-taught-in-some-sex-education students still engage in sexual activity. Pro’s problem is his own misinterpretation, befuddled by the “confusion.”  Pro cited the bolded sentence indicating a majority, “Most [53%],”   and took that to mean that 53% of students, after education, still engage in sexual activity. The sentence clearly reads that the “53%” refers to evaluations, not students, and that the evaluations were of “sexual or reproductive health education, to fairly generous sexual or reproductive health education.”  Do I really need to rebut an argument brought by my opponent’s misinterpretation? And does that constitute a drop? Caveat lector.
 
IV.c Causation. Correlation. Or, as Pro orders them [order is important in this issue], Correlation and Causation. As in, to quote Pro, “correlation does not infer causation.” Order is important, as any beginning debater should know, because… well, lets use Pro’s wet grass. First, we have grass. We need not be concerned from whence it came. It’s grass. But, what caused its wetness? First, we are introduced to a garden hose. Then, we are introduced to morning dew. Finally, we are introduced to another natural cause: rain. The product of a garden hose [water] is the same substance as morning dew [water], and as is the product of clouds [water]. Therefore, the cause of wetness, water, is identified as either from a garden hose [an artificial source, both by the hose itself, and the municipal delivery of water to a residence], or by condensation, or precipitation [both natural sources]. That the cause of wetness is water is without question. The effect, wetness, has two potential, correlating sources [artificial, and/or natural], correlating, because their product is the same even though delivery is different. Therefore, while Pro’s order of elements is not true, Con’s order is true: Causation [wet grass] does infer correlation when there is one effect of variant causes [water, due to hose, condensation, or rain, or any combination thereof].
 
IV.c.1 Pro offers definitions of Correlation, and Causation, as if I am arguing for their co-definition. No, I did not say they are the same definition at all, and I’ll agree to Pro’s Cambridge definitions. They are distinct words, but I argue for their relationship, specifically in the order that causation can yield correlation. Always? I don’t know and the answer is not necessary to my BoP. In relation to abstinence vs. artificial contraceptive methods, the correlation [cause of prevention of teen pregnancy] exists. That abstinence education is 100% effective by subsequent practice is not my BoP, while it is my opponent’s BoP that abstinence education is never [0%] effective. To date, the latter has not been proved. The former, by my citations in R1, R2, and R3, has been proved.
 
IV.d Pro argues that I do not present evidence that, Growing acknowledgment of young people’s sexuality has popularized instruction on life skills, with most states now requiring instruction on healthy relationships and the prevention of sexual violence."[9]   Yes, this is my source from R1. 
 
IV.d.1 That my source may speak to alternate issues is out of my control. Equally, Pro’s source, CA AB 329,[10]   discusses the need to educate children in sexual and reproductive skills to prevent HIV, yet Pro has not once argued this point short of quoting the citation.  However, I challenge Pro to define wherein life skills, healthy relationships, and sexual violence have expression in any corner of the Resolution, and that I should, therefore, rebut these extremities. Please, let us stay on the  point.
 
V Rebuttal: Pro’s R3, Def. II, Relink [syllogisms]
 
V.a I have already argued: syllogisms must have proposals [premises] that hold logic. Pro’s syllogism P1 assumes a fact not in evidence, due simply to use of the term, “typically,” which, by definition, implies by synonyms: “normally,” or “usually,”[11]  which also implies “most” of a collection of similar things. However, my R1, VI.d source [15][12]  states that of the 50 states, only 5 [10%], are true, abstinence-only educating states.  By the way, those states report teen pregnancy occurrences [15.8%] which is BELOW the average [17.7%] state occurrence. [refer to my R1, VI.d.2 item 1]  Of all states that teach abstinence [37, or 84%], other forms of contraception are also taught. Therefore, Pro’s syllogism P1 disregards the successful  greater reduction in teen pregnancies by abstinence-only states, it ignores that the preponderance of states teach both standards, but do not have the same success rate as abstinence-only states.  Therefore P1 is false. If P1 is false, the entire syllogism fails, as does the Resolution.
 
VI Rebuttal: Pro’s R3, Rebuttal I
 
VI.a Pro argues, The fact that there is a resolution which could "eliminate" teen-pregnancy is not relevant.”  I concur; complete prevention of teen pregnancy is not the stated goal of the Resolution. Reduction is. My citation of source R1, [15], also cited above, V.a, demonstrates the success of abstinence-only education in those five states wherein that type of education is exclusively provided, and the results demonstrate a reduction of 1.9% from the all-states’ average [17.7% - 15.8%] incidents of teen pregnancy. As Pro has not assigned an incremental level of necessary reduction as a threshold of “effective,” I declare the Resolution fails.
 
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s R3, Rebuttal II
 
VII.a Pro chides that repeating an argument is making the same argument, as if an experienced debater would not do that. Too easily relevant, not as easily given substance. Well, dear Pro, Rebuttal II is a repeat of Rebuttal I. We were even given definition of ‘education.’ Great, but, I challenge Pro to describe the distinction between the charge that elimination of teen pregnancy is not relevant, and the charge that educating abstinence-only is not substantive. Relevance, substance… Pro argues in similar fashion; a singular, repeated argument that my BoP does not exist to rebut the Resolution. In other words, I have, to date, with publication of a third round, occupied 50,000 words that are,  “sound and fury, signifying nothing”[13]   while Pro, apparently, “struts and frets his hour upon the stage.”[14]   To which I reply, “Life’s but a shadow...”[15]   somewhere out among the audience.  Well, again, caveat lector.  
 
VIII Defense: Pro’s Resolution is a failure
 
VIII.a To the degree that teens’ successful behavior in sexual activity following education in use of either artificial contraceptives, or abstinence-only avoidance of sexual activity, which is the only thrust of the Resolution, the data[16]   shows that in states where abstinence-only education is taught, the teen pregnancy rate is 15.8%, or an incident of 1.58:1,000 teen females.[17]   Whereas, in states where there is artificial contraception education, or a combination of that method in addition to abstinence education, the teen pregnancy rate is 17.7%, or an incident of 1.77:1,000 teen females.[18]   Having a lower incident of teen pregnancy in abstinence-only state education, clearly, the Resolution fails its effectiveness test.
 
To Pro the final round
 
 
 
 


[5]ibid
[6]ibid
[13]Wm. Shakespeare, Macbeth, V, v
[14]ibid
[15]ibid
[17]ibid
[18]ibid

Round 4
Pro
RESOLUTION:  Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
POSITION: Pro

RESP. TO STRUCTURE:
I don't wish to take up to much of the wordage with this; however, it must be noted that Con's absurd call for me to "Cease and desist" trying to sway the voters is absurd. The entire point of this debate structure is to convince the readers who's the position regarding the resolution is correct - I will continue to ask the voters - if Con is attempting to purposely drop my argument until the last round I would ask that it be considered a penalty of a conduct point towards Con - notice voters and Con - I prefaced both calls to actions with the word IF, if no such motives are found then the point is mute, as the IF always implied.


DEFENCE I (Con's IV) - WIDER PICTURE.
  • 1a. Paywall Argument
  • 1b. Misintpreted Argument
  • 1c. Correlation is not Causation
1a. Firstly - let's address the whole "paywall" thing by Con - IF there is a paywall, THEN it is because there is information that is regarded as valuable, no? Would Con disagree with this fairly simply argument - next - the sources which I use to bolster the argument are themselves LINKS of the aforementioned "paywall" source. Therefore, if there is a paywall that only lets you see a declarative statement, and a source that is cited, is that source not supported by raw information? It seems as if Con has not kept in mind the presence of my arguments.

1b. That does, however, bring into question the second source - the one I "misinterpreted" - this comes down to essentially one argument. That I misinterpreted "evaluations" for students. Voters, please note that once again Con failed to actually cite the source he claims I misinterpreted. I will explain the wording that Con has become caught up on - I did not misinterpret evaluations for students - I identified the fact that "evaluations" meant "evaluations of students".  I will quote the passage concerned for the voter's consideration now [1]:

". Most (53%) of the evaluations compared their program to “business as usual.” Business as usual ranged from no other sexual or reproductive health education, to fairly generous sexual or reproductive health education. Evaluations were conducted with a fairly even split of participants in middle school (29%), high school (29%), and high school and older (24%), and a smaller proportion spanning both middle- and high-school (17%; Table 2). The majority of evaluations examined abstinence or sexual activity (73%) and condom or contraceptive use (80%). Pregnancy (22%) and frequency of sex (20%) were also common behavioral outcomes and a small number of evaluations examined STI rates and number of sexual partners"
Notice that the sentence directly following the bolded one discusses the nature of the evaluations: "Evaluations were conducted with a fairly even split of participants in middle school (29%), high school (29%), and high school and older (24%), and a smaller proportion spanning both middle- and high-school" The participants are split between different schools - therefore substantiating my claim that the evaluations are OF STUDENTS. I would ask that Con please cite the text that he claims I am misquoting next time to avoid the confusion he has wrought with this argument.

1c. Finally we address the... rambling notion of "causation and correlation" I find two parts of the passage particularly interesting:
"Causation. Correlation. Or, as Pro orders them [order is important in this issue], Correlation and Causation. As in, to quote Pro, “correlation does not infer causation.”....The effect, wetness, has two potential, correlating sources [artificial, and/or natural], correlating, because their product is the same even though delivery is different. Therefore, while Pro’s order of elements is not true, Con’s order is true: Causation [wet grass] does infer correlation when there is one effect of variant causes [water, due to hose, condensation, or rain, or any combination thereof]."
Con is essentially arguing that because the products of a hose wetting grass, and dew wetting grass are the same, that causation does not infer correlation and not the other way around...I find myself astounded at Con's pedantic argument here - we are discussing the "how" of the water becoming wet - therefore causation here would mean what caused the grass to become wet, the correlation would be things associated with making grass wet. Notice that the actual conclusion, the grass becoming wet, has to be the same in order for this comparison to even hold - of course, both the hose and dew make grass wet, that's why they are correlated. Neither answer how the water became wet.

Con's argument not only does not actually address my arguments here, but fundamentally misunderstands what causation and correlation is, and this is after agreeing to my definitions provided just after this point! Let's move on to Con's next argument having broken down his foundation:
" but I argue for their relationship, specifically in the order that causation can yield correlation. Always? I don’t know and the answer is not necessary to my BoP. In relation to abstinence vs. artificial contraceptive methods, the correlation [cause of prevention of teen pregnancy] exists. That abstinence education is 100% effective by subsequent practice is not my BoP, while it is my opponent’s BoP that abstinence education is never [0%] effective. To date, the latter has not been proved. The former, by my citations in R1, R2, and R3, has been proved.""
Con fails to actually argue against my points brought up in round 3, instead arguing that there is a connection... yet he fails to actually demonstrate such a connection, instead of trusting that the voters see the connection without any sort of proof - I am arguing that the studies used by Con - as I did in round 3 - do not have any data which allows them to be demonstrative - Con has failed to address this argument - extend. 

Finally, an argument that is irrelevant to the resolution, instead of trying to call my motives into question - I do not bring up contraceptives being useful because that is not what this debate is about, and it takes useful character space away from me, and calls back to an argument which I already thoroughly deconstructed in Round 2, and 3, in fact - the entire point of the contention is discussing the interaction between my sources and his regarding the resolution - note that my sources directly draw conclusions, and Con's are only interpreted (ironic I know) by Con himself, never actually stated in any of the sources. 


DEFENCE II (Con's V) - RELINK.
Con simply restates their argument, I therefore provide my argument from round 3 to rebuke it once again:
PREMISE: 
Abstinence-only education does not typically teach about other measures of preventing birth aside from abstinence
PREMISEIF such a scenario occurs where a teenager isn't abstinent, THEN they would not know other ways to prevent pregnancy
CONCLUSION: Therefore, IF Teenagers do not remain abstinent after the education, THEN they are more likely to become or induce pregnancy
We are arguing for the validity (how the premises logically follow to the conclusion) and the soundness (the validity and truth of the premises presented) of the above mentioned syllogism. Apologises for the incorrect referencing - regardless I would ask that Con label specific arguments without roman numerals inside the arguemnt itself, while it is helpful for his opponent (myself) for reference, it needlessly confuses voters or other readers - it discourages voting - which I do not think my opponent or I want. 

Con fails to introduce new argument regarding the "lack of logic" in the mentioned syllogism, simply referencing their round 1 arugment, which I have already rebuked. Furthermore Con relies on the argument preceeding it (The entire: Wider Picture back & forth) and ignores that I also gave reference at the latter end of the second round (Round 2, Pro, CONTENTION I. CONT).

DEFENCE III (Con's VI) - INEFFECTIVE RESOLUTION.
"results demonstrate a reduction of 1.9% from the all-states’ average [17.7% - 15.8%] incidents of teen pregnancy. As Pro has not assigned an incremental level of necessary reduction as a threshold of “effective,” I declare the Resolution fails."
You see I am not swayed by Con's arguments nor his sources -why? Because it is simply hanging onto Thought.Co's sources, this is after I have not only demonstrated that these arguments non-causal, but disputed by a number of other sources which draw causal conclusions - furthermore, I also brought into doubt the actual rate of abstinence only sex-education in the states that Con cites - Con is stuck on using a continuously disproven source, and as such has no impact to his argument. He also fails to argue against my rebuttal in the previous incarnation of the contention in round 3 - extend. 


DEFENCE IV (Con's VII) - EFF. ABST. ONLY. EDU..
Con fails, as might be per usual in this round, to actually respond to my argument - instead talking about pedantic of repeating arguments (I only clarified because Con said that he hadn't been repeating arguments in round 3) There is one sentence of substance amongst the play, which I present to the voters for analysis:
 I challenge Pro to describe the distinction between the charge that elimination of teen pregnancy is not relevant, and the charge that educating abstinence-only is not substantive
There wasn't meant to be a distinction or a comparison - here is what I said for the voters:
the entire process of teaching abstinence only sex education is simply not substantive in reducing teen pregnancy, even if Con show's the system is flawed, that would be supporting my argument
The entire point is to say that it does not matter if the education for abstinence is not effective at teaching kids to not have sex - that's literally the entire point of my resolution - Abstinence only sex education does not reduce how much kids have sex - perhaps because the teaching is incorrect - however that would answer "why are abstinence only sex education not reducing teen pregnancy", which, as the voters might notice, axiomatically takes the fact that abstinence-only sex education does not reduce teen pregnancy is true, thereby supporting my resolution - there is no need to answer Con's challenge, it isn't relevant.


REBUTTAL I (Con's I) - FAILURE BY IGNORANCE. 
 This means, of course, that 56% of males, and 58% of females, did not engage in sexual activity within those same years; a majority in both cases. If more teens are not engaging in sexual activity than are, this speaks clearly to Con’s BoP: that abstinence is successful, or, in the context of the Resolution, “effective.” Is that due to formal education, family values, or personal choice in addition to the influence of the first two? 
Con argues that because his source says that a percentage of the population does not engage in sex, his resolution: "That abstinence-only sex-education is effective at reducing teen pregnancy" is therefore true. However, that A) disregards the multiple sources which draw to the conclusion that Abstinence-only sex education is not effective at reducing teen pregnancy- but also that the fact that some kids do not have sex is not at all indicative of the usefulness of abstinence-only sex education.

Firstly - the opposing type of education - Comprehensive Sex education - includes abstinence teachings (recall Round 1), meaning that this trend of teens not having sex could have just as well been brought from the comprehensive sex education - however, either conclusion would be jumping to conclusions - as there's zero evidence in Con's link that shows that this rate of abstinence in kids is from abstinence-only sex education. 

For the Voter's consideration - Con's source - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr104.pdf:
"Female teenagers’ use of a method ofcontraception at first sex increased from 74.5% in 2002 to 81.0% in 2011–2015. Maleteenagers’ use of a condom at first sex increased from 70.9% in 2002 to 79.6% in2006–2010 and remained stable at 76.8% in 2011–2015. Overall, in 2011–2015, 5.8%of female teenagers had used a long-acting reversible method (intrauterine device or implant)"
This shows that there is an increasing rate of teenagers using contraceptives, which would say nothing about abstinence only sex education, Con's source does not support his conclusion. 


REBUTTAL II (Con's II) - INCORRECT MOTIVATION.
How about simple results: teens who do not engage in sexual activity, i.e., they abstain, do not get pregnant. 100% of them do not get pregnant. Any other artificial contraceptive cannot claim that 100% effectiveness, no matter how some agenda tries to twist the data. Abstention’s effectiveness speaks for itself. And, since it is clear that education in contraceptives-only, contraceptives plus abstention, and abstention-only is taking place across the country, there are verifiable results of avoiding teen pregnancy, and a clear effective winner emerges: abstinence-only. 
First of all  - it must be noted that this is a new argument - which is prohibited by the terms of the description - it must therefore be true that con ought to be penalized for this transgression. It is even noted as new by the title as an "argument" and not a defence nor a rebuttal. Let's get into the actual substance of this new argument though. Con completely ignores the fact that none of the curricula that he is discussing is actually abstinence-only - therefore it's effectiveness does not actually matter - since it does not support his conclusion - furthermore - the fact that abstinence is effective at reducing teen pregnancy, does not support the fact that Abstinence-only sex education reduces teen pregnancy - instead it demonstrates the same fallacy showcased by Con throughout the debate. Conflating abstinence and abstinence-only sex education. 

Let's take a look at a quote from Con to substantiate my point that: "completely ignores the fact that none of the curricula that he is discussing is actually abstinence-only"
"Therefore, Pro’s resolution fails because, regardless of motivation, teens are engaging in less sexual activity now than before, therefore, resulting in fewer teen pregnancies, and the success of higher use of artificial contraceptives and abstinence is demonstrating a reduction in teen pregnancies over the last 20 years."
If a curriculum is talking about a contraceptive, then it is by definition not abstinence-only - Con is completely disregarding his position here, and simply trying to set up gotchas with my sources, jumping at any mention of the word abstinence - despite the fact that at every turn if abstinence is effective, it is taught comprehensively and not, as Con is trying to prove, by abstinence only.


REBUTTAL III (Con's III) - WHAT IS ABSTN.
"How well does abstinence work?  Abstinence, when faithfully and consistently practiced, is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Every other form of artificial contraception has some percentage of failure to reduce teen pregnancy, whether reduction, or prevention is the intent."
This is the only quote of Con's I need, notice the bolded words in the above quote: when faithfully and consistently practiced, yet Con has yet to demonstrate that abstinence-only sex education actually achieves this effect - Con has successfully convinced me that abstinence will always be effective at preventing pregnancies, but not that abstinence-only sex education actually achieves "faithful and consistently practiced" abstinence. This argument is begging the question, as it assumes that abstinence-only sex education effectively teaches abstinence. Con has demonstrated naught of his resolution. 

Therefore, having an education in abstinence-only practice, even lacking coursework in the use of artificial contraceptives, the student dedicated to avoiding sexual relations will succeed in the practice of abstinence with 100% effective results in preventing teen pregnancy
"the student dedicated to avoiding sexual relations" is something that must be proven in order for this contention to hold any water - it is simply not demonstrated by Con. 


CONCLUSION:
Con has failed to bring down these sources:
The teen pregnancy prevention program (2010–2015): synthesis of impact findings [10]:
Fewer than half of the evaluations provided a program to the control group, examples include health and nutrition classes, college or career training, safe driving, and mentoring. Most (53%) of the evaluations compared their program to “business as usual.” Business as usual ranged from no other sexual or reproductive health education, to fairly generous sexual or reproductive health education. Evaluations were conducted with a fairly even split of participants in middle school (29%), high school (29%), and high school and older (24%), and a smaller proportion spanning both middle- and high-school (17%; Table 2).

"While theoretically fully protective, abstinence intentions often fail, as abstinence is not maintained. AOUM programs are not effective in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse or changing other behaviors. Conversely, many comprehensive sexuality education programs successfully delay initiation of sexual intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors. AOUM programs inherently provide incomplete information and are often neglectful to sexually active adolescents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning adolescents; pregnant and parenting adolescents; and survivors of sexual assault."

"Trump administration has spent three years advocating for harmful and ineffective abstinence-only programs. These efforts ignore the fact that contraception is driving declines in adolescent pregnancy and fail to serve young people’s broader sexual health needs. State and federal sex education advocates should continue to resist abstinence-only approaches to sex education, while simultaneously arguing for more expansive forms of sex education."

"The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) finds insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education interventions delivered to adolescents to prevent pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Evidence is considered insufficient because of inconsistent results across studies."
Therefore Con has failed to disprove the resolution - "Abstinence-only sex education is not effective at reducing teen pregnancy." This is not counting the other arguments made by myself - this is all that is necessary to demonstrate my position, and Con has failed in that aspect. In contrast, Con's only source, the loftily held Thought.Co article, has been taken apart in several ways - from the lack of causal data to the fact that the districts which Con uses to say that abstinence-only states have lowered teen pregnancy, actually require comprehensive sex education - this point was even dropped by Con in this round.

The only other argument that is key to Con's position is that abstinence is effective, but fails repeatedly to demonstrate that teaching only abstinence has the same effect.
VOTE PRO
Con
Resolved: Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy
 
I Rebuttal: Structure maintenance:  No longer relevant.
 
II Rebuttal: “Wider picture”  [a] Paywall, [b] Misinterpretation, [c] Correlation/causation
 
II.a I contend the legitimacy of using a source that requires payment for access is not the best sourcing strategy. 
 
II.b What is really represented by the value of 53%?
 
II.b.1 In Pro’s argument of the 53% value, he says in R1, source [10], “That is a big confusing paragrapgh, but it summarizedly finds that abstinence only sex education finds that students will still particapate in sex at majority rates (re: just read the bolded setence there).”   Pro interprets the meaning of 53% by relating it to the participation in teen rate of sexual activity by referencing the “bolded text.” But 53% is not the percentage of teen participation in sexual activity. Pro’s interpretation is a misunderstanding of the source, perhaps making it more confusing than necessary. 
 
II.b.2 My RI:  “VI.b.2.A The source Pro cites, [10], for the claim of “high volume” is Guttmacher Institute,[12]  a respected source for this data, but the data reported is from 2001, a generation ago. Conversely, data from WorldPopulationReview.com, with data reporting currently [2021] indicates that incidents of teen pregnancy in the U.S. have reduced  to a record level in the past 20 years to 17.7:1,000 teens.[1]
 
II.b.3 My R2: “I.b The ability of a teen, by Pro’s definition, to abstain from sex is obvious in the numbers of teens who do so. According to the CDC, from 2010 to 2015,  the numbers of males and females, aged 15 to 19, engaging in sexual activity were 44% and 42%, respectively.”  I note that the years should be 2011 – 2015, but that correction is not significant to my argument. Compare this to Pro’s claim of 53% sexually activity.
 
“I.b.1 This means, of course, that 56% of males, and 58% of females, did not engage in sexual activity within those same years; a majority in both cases. If more teens are not engaging in sexual activity than are, this speaks clearly to Con’s BoP: that abstinence is successful, or, in the context of the Resolution, “effective.” Is that due to formal education, family values, or personal choice in addition to the influence of the first two?” These are all matters that may be regarded as education.
 
“I.b.2 The fact is, more teens are abstaining than not. It speaks for itself.” 
 
II.c Pro’s R4 rebuttal of cause and correlate: “...we are discussing the "how" of the water becoming wet - therefore causation here would mean what caused the grass to become wet…”   We know water molecules become “wet” at the threshold of six, or more combined molecules. This ought to be relatively common knowledge. Six molecules of H20 are smaller than one drop of water, so, even as dew, let alone rain, or a hose, the grass will be wet. We, therefore, need not discuss “the ‘how’ of water becoming wet.” What is relevant are the variable methods by which the grass becomes wet: by dew, by rain, or by a hose. Therefore, as I rebutted in R3, IV.c “…Causation [wet grass] does infer correlation when there is one effect of variant causes [water, due to hose, condensation, or rain, or any combination thereof].”  Therefore, Pro’s claim, “Con’s argument… does not address my arguments here,”  and that  “Con fails… to…demonstrate such a connection”[of causation and correlation]  because Con “…fundamentally misunderstands what causation and correlation is…”   Has Con “…failed to address this argument?”  I leave my rebuttal as quoted, including quotes from Pro, related here to voters to judge my understanding of terms and their implications.
 
II.d Pro makes concluding rebuttal in this R4 section on “Wider Picture.” I conclude it amounts to a new argument, to wit,   that Pro claims, “the interaction between my sources and his regarding the resolution - note that my sources directly draw conclusions, and Con's are only interpreted (ironic I know) by Con himself, never actually stated in any of the sources.”  I challenge that, yes, I do interpret sources, and my interpretations and sources properly correlate. This has not been a raised issue by Pro in previous rounds, whereas, I did argue in my R1, and R3, as noted above in II.b – II.b.3, that Pro has misinterpreted his source [10], and never properly acknowledged his misinterpretation, making the entire Pro argument successfully rebutted.
 
III Rebuttal: Pro’s Relink
 
III.a I repeat my R3 rebuttal to this Pro argument, a virtual repeat of my R2:  
 
“V.a I have already argued: syllogisms must have proposals [premises] that hold logic. Pro’s syllogism P1 assumes a fact not in evidence, due simply to use of the term, “typically,” which, by definition, implies by synonyms: “normally,” or “usually,”[11]  which also implies “most” of a collection of similar things. However, my R1, VI.d source [15][12]  states that of the 50 states, only 5 [10%], are true, abstinence-only educating states.  By the way, those states report teen pregnancy occurrences [15.8%] which is BELOW the average [17.7%] state occurrence. [refer to my R1, VI.d.2 item 1]  Of all states that teach abstinence [37, or 84%], other forms of contraception are also taught. Therefore, Pro’s syllogism P1 disregards the successful  greater reduction in teen pregnancies by abstinence-only states, it ignores that the preponderance of states teach both standards, but do not have the same success rate as abstinence-only states.  Therefore P1 is false. If P1 is false, the entire syllogism fails, as does the Resolution.”
 
III.b Pro has failed to defend his argument regarding use of “typically,” with any other argument. Pro merely states I repeat my rebuttal. Pro effectively passied on the offer of further defense. Pro demonstrates failure to meet the challenge to justify how “typically” abstintence-only education states fail to have an effect on teen pregnancy rates, the crux of the Resolution. Where's the data? The five true abstinence-only education States have demonstrated lower percentage of teen pregnancy than other States. Direct causation? Pro offered no other suggestion of cause. Pro confuses 53% as referencing a majority of teens who engage in sexual activity. Were it true, perhaps, but without any proof of it beyond the claim, what data supports it? The argument was just debunked immediately above.
 
III.c Pro claims, “Con fails to introduce new argument regarding the ‘lack of logic…’”  Correct. I need no new argument when my rebuttals of R2 and R3 demonstrated the “lack of logic” in Pro’s R1 syllogism.  I declare Pro must prove his syllogism logic, but all he did was offer the following, which [by bolded text] demonstrates a circular, therefore illogical argument:  
 
"Abstinence only sex-education is not effective in reducing teen pregnancy,because the data we have demonstrate  [I still ask: “What data?”]  that abstinence only sex-education isn't effective at reducing teen pregnancy, and of course abstinence only sex education in not effective in reducing teen pregnancy.”  
 
III. c.1 I call attention to the repeat argument of above, III.a, [Ref. my R1 source [15]]  presenting evidence that States with abstinence-only education have a “reduction” of teen pregnancy. Pro’s alleged “rebuke” is nonsense. The Resolution is false.
 
III.d Pro’s R4 refers to three sources offered in his R2 from jahonline.com,[2]  Guttmacher.org,[3]. and thecommunityguide.com,[4]. and claims I have not addressed them.
 
III.d.1 Jahonline said, "While theoretically fully protective, abstinence intentions often fail, as abstinence is not maintained.”   This was fully rebutted in my R2, VI.a, VI.a.1.
 
III.d.2 My R2, VI.b rebuttal rebutted the Guttmacher article completely as being a misdirection of what the site to which Guttmacher links [the 2020 Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program [TPPP]]. 
 
III.d.3 My R2, VI.c, VI.d rebutted Pro’s third source, thecommunnityguide, indicating that the source found “insufficient evidence” to support Pro’s claim. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
IV Defense: Ineffective Resolution
 
IV.a Con’s R4 is unswayed by my arguments and sources, specifically, in this case, my cited R1 source [15],[5]  also cited in my R2, [2 – 5], and R3 [9, 12, 16]. Con would not believe a Con source, but unless he has cited sources counter-arguing the data my sources present, Pro’s opinion of being swayed, or not, is just opinion, while I have cited sources on multiple occasions in 3 previous rounds. Pro’s sources can only demonstrate a false claim without supporting data, a misdirection from an internal secondary source, and a source claiming insufficient data. [See above, III.d.1, III.d.2, III.d.3]
 
IV.a.1 Pro claims, Con is stuck on using a continuously disproven source.”  Stuck? Yes, I defend my sources, while Pro has not provided evidence, other than by claim, that the source is invalid. Disproven? Not by any argument supported by opposing data.
 
V Defense: Quantifiable effectiveness of abstinence-only education
 
V.a Referring to the Resolution, which contains no quantitative gage of “effective,” has Pro offered any evidence of quantifiable effectiveness of artificial contraception as more effective in reduction of teen pregnancy than abstinence-only education such as by relative percentages of results, thereby demonstrating the Resolution is true? No. Again, I’ll refer to my rebuttal of Pro arguments with sources as contained above, III.d.1, III.d.2, III.d.3. Not only are Pro’s sources failing to rebut my BoP, they fail to support Pro’s BoP.
 
V.b I suggest that Pro’s sources can only demonstrate a false claim without supporting data, a misdirection from an internal secondary source, and a source claiming insufficient data. Meanwhile, I have argued the effectiveness of abstinence-only education by actual cited data of percentage of reduction, which is over and above the requirement of my BoP [see my cited R1 source [15], cited above IV.a], while Pro merely “is not swayed,” but offers no definitive percentage of reduction of his own BoP that shows a greater effectiveness, by percentage, of artificial contraceptives education vs. abstinence only education, and the results of relative teen pregnancy rates according to each form of education. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
 
V.b By contrast, has Con, by the same quantitative evidence, shown abstinence-only education, by relative percentage of results, to be more effective than artificial contraception education in the reduction of teen pregnancy, demonstrating that the Resolution is false? Yes, I have.
 
V.c In my R3, VII.a, I challenge Pro to describe the distinction between the charge that elimination of teen pregnancy is not relevant, and the charge that educating abstinence-only is not substantive. Relevance, substance…”   Pro replied in R4, “…there is no need to answer Con's challenge, it isn't relevant.”   I specifically challenged Pro to respond to two conditions that are denied by the Resolution. Rather than provide that evidence to refute my BoP, Pro claimed my BoP is not “relevant.”  It is evidence that Pro believes he has rebutted my BoP merely by that statement, without having to demonstrate his case by any data evidence to the contrary, other than by sources making a false claim without supporting data, a misdirection from an internal secondary source, and a source claiming insufficient data.] I suggest the Pro response should have been more relevant.
 
VI Defense: Failure by ignorance
 
VI.a Pro offers two reasons why failure [of the Resolution] by ignorance is not an effective argument: that it “disregards the multiple sources which draw to the conclusion that Abstinence-only sex education is not effective at reducing teen pregnancy- but also that the fact that some kids do not have sex is not at all indicative of the usefulness of abstinence-only sex education.” Do those alleged sources offer convincing data to support what are, after, mere repeats of Pro’s data-lacking claims? No, they do not.
 
VI.a.1 Pro’s multiple sources only demonstrated a false claim without supporting data, a misdirection from an internal secondary source, and a source claiming insufficient data. Yes, same old, repetitive argument. Being true, it bears repeating. Show me the evidence, challenged, that artificial contraceptive education is more effective than abstinence-only education in reducing teen pregnancy. I’ve showed evidence to the contrary, defeating the Resolution, but where is Pro’s cited data, by sources that…. Yeah, as this section begins. And, yeah, that evidence would have been relevant, if only it was offered. Show me Pro’s source that refutes that teen pregnancy by abstinence [whether that education is by classroom, by parental guidance, or by personal commitment – these distinctions were not discussed by Pro, but I did, and Pro did not rebut such expanded educational methods]… that teen pregnancy is not 1.9% more effective than “education,” by whatever means, of artificial contraceptives. Was Pro data presented? No. Was Pro “not swayed?” Sure, Pro said it. Caveat lector.
 
VI.b Pro’s final “rebuttal” of this Pro argument says, “For the Voter's consideration - Con's source - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr104.pdf:”   Yes, I, too, invite the voter’s consideration, chiefly because I challenge Pro [except Pro cannot now respond], and the voters to find where, in in this citation, specifically in Figure 1 of that CDC source, that, according to Pro, “Con's source does not support his conclusion.”  Figure 1 says between 2011 – 2015, 42% of females, and 44% of males between 15 – 19, have engaged in sexual intercourse.By interpolation, the majority of teens do not engage in sexual activity. I declare Pro’s argument, therefore, invalid.
 
VII Defense: Incorrect Motivation
 
VII.a Pro quotes an argument from my R3regarding teens who do not engage in sexual activity, then claims, “First of all  - it must be noted that this is a new argument - which is prohibited by the terms of the description - it must therefore be true that con ought to be penalized for this transgression.” [bolded by Pro]. Yes, this was a new argument, argued in R3,  which, by my count, and easily confirmed by any reader, is the next-to-last round,  and not the last round, as Pro charges. This debate was initiated by Pro, and he called the number of rounds – 4 rounds. I’ll leave it to voters to determine whether I have violated Pro’s Description General Rule #1 in my R3, or not. 
 
VII.b Pro then quotes my R3, II.d argument of the lowest number of teen pregnancies in the last 20 years, claiming that the argument “ignores” abstinence-only education. But it is Pro who ignores the justification of my conclusion in R3, II.d, referring to my R3, II.a sourced argument [4]: “On average, authentic or traditional abstinence curricula devote 53.7 percent of their page content to abstinence-related material. In addition, these curricula devote 17.4 percent of their content to the subjects of healthy relationships and the benefits of marriage, both of which directly reinforce the main theme of teen abstinence. Authentic abstinence curricula allocate zero percent of their content to promoting contraception”[6] “Authentic” abstinence education is abstinence-only per the source. Therefore, Pro’s claim is false, as is the Resolution.
 
VIII Defense: What is abstinence…?
 
Viii.a Pro takes issue with my sourced citation from R3, [8],[7]. “Abstinence, when faithfully and consistently practiced…”  claiming that I have yet to demonstrate the effectiveness of practicing abstinence. I refer to my R1, arg. II, with all sub-paragraphs, citing three sources, [5], 6], [7]; a;; of which support my argument of effectiveness.  Further, Pro admits in his R4, Con has successfully convinced me that abstinence will always be effective at preventing pregnancies, but not that abstinence-only sex education actually achieves "faithful and consistently practiced" abstinence.”  But, I have, in R1, arg I.a, source [1]: Abstinence (AB-stih-nints) is the simplest form of birth control. If two people don't have sex, sperm can't fertilize an egg and there's no possibility of pregnancy.”[8] Further, ref. my RR3, II.a and II.a.1 sourced argument [4], highlighted in arg. VII.b, above.[9]
 
IX Rebuttal: Pro Conclusion
 
IX.a Pro claims my failure to rebut his three R2 sources, Jahonline, Guttmacher, and thecommunityguide. They were rebutted just above, III.d.1, .2, & .3, but were also rebutted in my R2, VI; all sub-paragraphs. It is for readers to determine by vote if these rebuttals adequately defeat the Resolution.
 
IX.b Finally, Pro’s R4 claims my only source is Thoughtco.com. I have cited that source once in just this round, but the evidence in this round 4 is that there are several other sources supporting  my rebuttals and defenses throughout all rounds. This claim is clearly false. Moreover, Pro offers additional claim that Thoughtco.com “lacks causal data.”  I quote from my R1, VI.d.2, item 1: “Of the 11 states that report being abstinence-only states, 5 are true abstinence-only states, item [4], statewide, while the remaining 3 do have districts with shared ed systems [con + abs], item [3]. These 5 [true abs-only] show a teen pregnancy rate of 15.8%; below  the most current national rate average, 17.7%.”  Looks like causal data to me.
 
IX.b.1 Finally, Pro claims the source does not cover the fact that the districts which Con uses to say that abstinence-only states have lowered teen pregnancy, actually require comprehensive sex education - this point was even dropped by Con in this round.”  Pro ignores the five states having true abstinence-only education, not “comprehensive sex education,” and the results speak for themselves as cited in IX.b, above. Dropped? Yes, Pro dropped it.
 
X Conclusion
 
X.a By the rebuttals and defenses given above, I have proven Resolution failure. Please vote for Con.