Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
5
debates
30.0%
won
Topic
#4888
Should LGBTQ+ topics be discussed in high schools?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
2
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
Theory: LGBTQ topics are harmful to children, up to the 6th grade.
1. Children that have not yet hit puberty have no reason to be taught about what it means to be gay or straight, as they have no sexual desires yet.
a) Children often will make friends with both genders. They do not develop feelings until much later. If we do not teach children about straight crushes until they are ready, why gay crushes?
b) There is simply no need for them to learn about it. Their time should be spent on earth science and their times tables. Taxpayers money should not be funding this unnecessary education that takes up valuable time.
2. People have a right to their own opinions.
a) Parents should be able to opt out of classes that indoctrinate these subjects. They know their child better, or simply do not feel comfortable with their children being taught LGBTQ ideas before they have even heard that word.
b) Epperson v Arkansas ruled that the most scientifically validated theory should be taught. LGBTQ ideas have no scientific basis, so why are teaching them?
3. Indoctrination is a serious problem.
a) Just because it started out well meaning doesn't mean it ended that way. Far-left teachers will confuse and encourage children to "explore their sexuality", which indoctrinated the children's easily molded minds, and sets them down the path of that teacher's choosing. It's better to just stay away from those ideas entirely.
b) If these topics can be discussed by far-left teachers, what's to stop far-right teachers from inputting their own, hateful, ideas into those children's heads? Once again, sexuality and gender topics should stay away from children entirely.
Conclusion: The risks far outweigh the benefits. We should not be making exceptions for LGBTQs that we don't make for straight talk.
Pro
#2
All websites are in english, let me know if I used the wrong website in my language.
Let's dig into this argument a bit slow.
Point:
Case:
This will consist of a few things.
Kritik (or well not really):
"Should LGBTQ+ topics be discussed in high schools?"
Discussed in high school means being discussed period.
Therefore meaning, this debate is not "Should LGBTQ+ be taught in high schools" it is being dicussed or mentioned in general.
I believe this is a human right, and espically in the United States, to be able to dicusss anything.
1) (Kritik or not really) Humans should have free speech about discussions
2) Teens deserve to know and understand their feelings
3) Teens in high school are starting to mature into dating
4) Exterior activities
C3) Teens should be allowed to dicuss
Burden:
The burden is on both users.
Pro must prove that LGBTQ+ topics should not be discussed in high school
Con must prove that LGBTQ+ topics should not be discussed in high school
Definitions:
High school
and high school is grades 9-12 (ages 14-18).
Contentions
I have ideas on how you will counter my rebuttals and contentions, but here we go.
Humans should have free speech
Many countries have free speech as a law.
As I know most on this site live in the US i'll use those examples.
Free speech amendment:
The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech.
Teens should always be alowed to dicuss the topics they would like. LGBTQ+ topics in high school is no reason for concern.
As the amendment states, nobody should not allow student's to dicuss topics they would like. Its free speech! "We" cannot and shouldn't not allow students to dicuss such topics because of stigma or bias.
Later, con talks about equality of "straight talk". Students should be allowed to dicuss LGBTQ+ topics, just like straight topics.
Teens deserve to know about their potential feelings for now or in the future
"By age 10, many children are showing the first signs of puberty, and their interest in what this means increases. Middle School/Junior High. At this time, children become increasingly aware of their own sexual feelings that naturally go along with puberty. Children may start masturbating for the sexual feelings."
"The age in which tweens develop romantic interests in other people varies tremendously from child to child. Some kids may start expressing interest in having a boyfriend or girlfriend as early as age 10 while others are 12 or 13 before they show any interest."
With both websites above, it's obvious teens have feelings even before high school.
Schools should fully address student's sexual orientations or gender in order to address themselves. I know many student's may be unsure, worried, or confused about their feelings and often hide them. Teaching or dicussions one-on-one give a student an idea.
If it was taught, it would give student's a safe outlet to feel comfortable. I do agree, straight crushes should be talked about, but they already are to a degree. The missing piece is underneath that is additional.
LGBTQ+ topics can and in lots of cases, should be discussed.
Straight topics can as well, but that doesn't mean LGBTQ+ topic's shouldn't.
I could agree all day that straight topics could be dicusssed but that would also mean adding LGBTQ+ topics which is my resolution.
Exterior relvent topic activities
Debates
(Writing this after rebuttals and running out of characters)..
Exterior after-school activities, such as debating should be allowed. There are debate clubs, and controversial every day heated arugments like this should be allowed. If they decide to debate in future years, they will come across a debate with LGBTQ+ debates. In order to be prepared, they should dicuss.
Perhaps it even just comes up. It's a debate after all.
Rebuttals
LGBTQ topics are harmful to children, up to the 6th grade
Let me stop con there.
6th grade? Refer back to the definition of high school.
Children that have not yet hit puberty have no reason to be taught about what it means to be gay or straight, as they have no sexual desires yet.
Countered in my contentions.
a) Children often will make friends with both genders. They do not develop feelings until much later. If we do not teach children about straight crushes until they are ready, why gay crushes?
This is what is called stigma.
Con shows us here, "if we do not teach children about straight crushes.." the topic of LGBTQ+ is not just talking about crushes.
And in fact, I counter this by most middle schools will talk about puberty, reproduction, relationships, and sexual things.
We already talk about crushes. But I can see where your getting at about "straight crushes and lgbtq+ crushes dicussions then", and I agree! But this debate does not really regard that.
LGBTQ+ dicussions could pretain the understanding you're gay/bi/etc feelings, how to comfortably come out, etc.
Teaching about it is just helpful for the people struggling with understanding their own feelings.
In the United State for more info: https://www.georgearmstrongelementary.org/pdf/sexual_health_curriculum//6-8/Introduction%20%20-%20Grades%206-8.pdf
Teens in high school have already gone through relationship conversations.
b) There is simply no need for them to learn about it. Their time should be spent on earth science and their times tables. Taxpayers money should not be funding this unnecessary education that takes up valuable time.
This could easily go into the program: https://www.georgearmstrongelementary.org/pdf/sexual_health_curriculum//6-8/Introduction%20%20-%20Grades%206-8.pdf
Plus, like I said in my contentions, "dicussions" don't always mean needing to be taught by a teacher.
2. People have a right to their own opinions.a) Parents should be able to opt out of classes that indoctrinate these subjects. They know their child better, or simply do not feel comfortable with their children being taught LGBTQ ideas before they have even heard that word.b) Epperson v Arkansas ruled that the most scientifically validated theory should be taught. LGBTQ ideas have no scientific basis, so why are teaching them?
I love when the title is "people should have a right to their own opinions" but really it's "parent's should have the right overule all opinions".
Repeat: "Plus, like I said in my contentions, "dicussions" don't always mean needing to be taught by a teacher."
Besides that..
First off, I believe parent's could opt out just like the sexual health curriculum.
Second off, you can clearly see that parent's wouldn't want their child knowing about lgbtq+ because they have biased opinons! Like you said "people should have the right to their own opinions", I agree! Teens are people. I wouldn't understand a parent that is that selfish to deny a teen of their own physical, sexual, emotional attraction comfort. And schools are there to teach, if they want to teach, enable students to understand themselves.
Indoctrination is a serious problem.a) Just because it started out well meaning doesn't mean it ended that way. Far-left teachers will confuse and encourage children to "explore their sexuality", which indoctrinated the children's easily molded minds, and sets them down the path of that teacher's choosing. It's better to just stay away from those ideas entirely.b) If these topics can be discussed by far-left teachers, what's to stop far-right teachers from inputting their own, hateful, ideas into those children's heads? Once again, sexuality and gender topics should stay away from children entirely
I just wanted to clearify, nurses in the sexual health curriculum have non-bias. That is why teachers step aside and let nurses do their job. They are specifically trained in order to answer questions with no bias opinions. Science and research based answers.
Also, nurses are there for only a few weeks to a month.
Exploring their sexuality means to understand yourself.
Like I said, nurses are trained for this type of thing.
QUICK MENTION:
We should not be making exceptions for LGBTQs that we don't make for straight talk.
This is con's real problem. They want equality.
My problem with this is, this debate is not "LGBTQ+ topics be discussed in high schools because straight topics aren't", it's "LGBTQ+ topics be discussed in high schools". It's like black lives matter, saying "all lives matter", instead of showing that "black lives matter just like everyone else".
LGBTQ+ taught subjects could help with understanding yourself and understanding its okay.
Round 2
Con
#3
As PRO has stated, my burden is to prove that LGBTQ topics should no be discussed at all in High School. This was not what I was actually trying to prove originally, but as PRO has pointed out, "discussion" includes not only teachers but also students. Alas, I now will switch my arguments and prove why it should not be heard at all in a school.
School is not the place to discuss illnesses. In fact, gender dysphoria is a legitimate disease/illness: "Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics [1]." So a teacher giving advice on how to treat it, and solve it is illegal: "Providing medical advice without a medical license is an unauthorized practice of medicine [2]." The same goes for a student advising surgery, or hormones. The place for talking and mental health issues is a licensed therapist. If a school has one, then that is the only place these topics should be discussed.
Next, I would like to revisit my last argument showing how teaching or encouraging LGBTQ topics is unconstitutional. Teachers cannot teach studenst about the biblical creation story or other religious creation stories because they are a belief and not scientific [3]. As such, all beliefs and unscientific should not be taught by teachers or forced on other students by their peers. There is no science to support the TQ+ part of LBGTQ+ [4, 5]. Therefore, it should not be considered an exception, a phrase I will inevitably have to use many times for this debate.
Last paragraph showed why the TQ+ part should not be discussed in schools. Now I will show why the LGB part should not be discussed in schools either. It is considered a sexual topic [6]. I will also group this with a rebuttal to PRO's claim that high school students are ready for sexual topics once they hit puberty or even before. This is not true. The part of the brain that deals with sex drive, the hypothalamus [7] "doesn’t fully develop (in men*) until age 25. Meanwhile, women experience a maturity rate of 21 years-old [8]. Therefore, we should not be teaching sexual topics until the students are fully mature [9].
*Added to clarify context.
Over to you.
Pro
#4
My argument deleted, I currently don't have enough time.
I'll proceed next round, but for the most part, extend. Everything I've said mostly has trumped over. Human rights, freedom of speech, trumps over. You don't need treatment for the LGBQ part of LGBTQ because they don't revolve around Gender dysphoria, it would be sexual orientation. So what you says only accounts for a small part. No medical treatment required for that part.
I'll explain this more next round.
Round 3
Pro
#6
School is not the place to discuss illnesses. In fact, gender dysphoria is a legitimate disease/illness: "Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics [1]." So a teacher giving advice on how to treat it, and solve it is illegal: "Providing medical advice without a medical license is an unauthorized practice of medicine [2]." The same goes for a student advising surgery, or hormones. The place for talking and mental health issues is a licensed therapist. If a school has one, then that is the only place these topics should be discussed.
First off all, this only relates to one part of the LGBTQ.
It only relates to T, for transgender. As the rest are sexual orientations which have no relation to gender dysphoria.
Further, I said licensed nurses would be teaching children. Not teachers for this exact reason. That being said, if teachers talked about transgender they do not need to mention medical advicement. Simply, "gender dysphoria is a medical condition and you should refer to a doctor for treatment". Something along those lines.
Next, I would like to revisit my last argument showing how teaching or encouraging LGBTQ topics is unconstitutional. Teachers cannot teach studenst about the biblical creation story or other religious creation stories because they are a belief and not scientific [3]. As such, all beliefs and unscientific should not be taught by teachers or forced on other students by their peers. There is no science to support the TQ+ part of LBGTQ+ [4, 5]. Therefore, it should not be considered an exception, a phrase I will inevitably have to use many times for this debate.
There is evidence for transgenderism, and queer us questioning their sexuality. Lots of people question their sexuality. that is most definitely backed up.
I don't have enough time to support transgenderism, but queer is obvious.
Also, they are not beliefs.
Last paragraph showed why the TQ+ part should not be discussed in schools. Now I will show why the LGB part should not be discussed in schools either. It is considered a sexual topic [6]. I will also group this with a rebuttal to PRO's claim that high school students are ready for sexual topics once they hit puberty or even before. This is not true. The part of the brain that deals with sex drive, the hypothalamus [7] "doesn’t fully develop (in men*) until age 25. Meanwhile, women experience a maturity rate of 21 years-old [8]. Therefore, we should not be teaching sexual topics until the students are fully mature [9].
I have already countered this with my contentions. You don't have to be fully mature to have sexual orientations, attractions, or urges.
Teens still feel all those things, it isn't like an awakened urge that pops up when you're 25.
Running out of time.. Have a debate to vote on.. One day is just not enough.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con forfeited 50% of debate. Win goes to Pro.
Thanks.
-> “ Cause LGBTQ is demonic”
This is not a valid reason for voting. Should it have been raised as an argument, more assessment of it and at least one other contention would be required. As is, this is a vote based on outside content of your options which do not align with the debate which occurred.
-> “ Con forfeited 50% of debate.”
Sorry, misread this and deleted the wrong vote. Please revote.
And sorry for the trouble!
In case it doesnt get removed, we just need 1 more vote to outweight that troll vote.
Guess it's my turn to report.
#1 vote seems like an obvious removal to me.
https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#writing-a-strong-resolution
If in doubt you can always use the forum to get feedback on potential resolutions.
I have definitely learned to choose my words more carefully lol
NASA is so far behind. Also i'm not taht strong of a christian its just fun to debate this stuff.
You win this time, Christian guy.
bro you know india just soft-landed on the south pole of the moon?
Im sorry if you think im hateful. I am a bi christian and i dont see any problems with it. I know that all religions, including atheiesm, ave problems. We are working through them. But I still belive religion has it's place.
My bad bro im bad at typing. lol bro but let me know when you can debate.
"Minor Attracted Persons. M.A.D"
Its map, not mad.
"why does your bio say ur Christian"
I am sometimes a Christian, just not right now. Cant really update profile every time I change personality.
Minor Attracted Persons. M.A.D.. I thought you would know this. why does your bio say ur Christian lol
"quit one so we can debate."
I will, as soon as I find the quit button.
"I was standing up for using less hurtful language. Thats not an attack."
Well, usually calling someone mad is a personal attack. Even the Bible says so in Jesus.
Bro im new, i didnt know.
quit one so we can debate. also i dont know how to make it rated
"you have to quit one."
Sorry, I didnt realize I could do that.
I was standing up for using less hurtful language. Thats not an attack.
"But i guess you should say pro-MAD."
That sounds like personal attack. I should inform you that personal attacks are not allowed on this site. Although I wont miss you if you get banned.
you have to quit one. it says you have the max active debates allowed
You can make any debate, really.
I guess its about banning teaching christianity, then
"I guess if we ban teaching opinions"
Not all opinions. Just obvious hateful ones like Christians's.
"you know that christianity is still the fastest growing religion"
There are more atheists now than before, thankfully. Also, Church attendance is low, so churches have to accept those groups they once killed.
"So there were gay christians, too."
Ah yes, the exception that does nothing to change the rule.
debate about banning teaching children christianity or teaching lgbtq ins chools?
Yeah, I've seen koreas debates. But i guess you should say pro-MAD.
Bro you know I misspelled that on accident. I meant love. I guess if we ban teaching opinions, we should ban teaching children about atheism, too. And change the constitution. Also, you know that christianity is still the fastest growing religion. And there were gay people as long as people. So there were gay christians, too.
"Do you wanna have an official debate?"
You can make the debate.
Pay North Korea no mind, he is the resident pro-pedophilia debater on this site.
Yeah my bad. This is my first debate.
"Christianity also promotes lo9ve"
Sorry, I dont know what "lo9ve" is. I dont have my Christian dictionary with me.
"there was a church who had a rainbow heart on their sign and said that all were welcome."
Yeah, if only the Bible said the same. Also, Church is losing support. There was no such Church when Christianity was popular. Only when they started losing users is when they changed story. Even today, it is mostly the Christians who are the hateful group. Its just that they no longer have power to execute gays or make them homeless.
"When in power, be ruthless. When powerless, pretend to be nice."
Oh you are one of those who think that they can change topic after the debate has already started. No. Once the debate starts, you must argue for the topic and nothing in your arguments can change the topic. Amazing, isnt it?
Historically, it was mostly Christians who promoted hate. Well, yes, hate, witch burning, killing gays, kicking gays out of communities...
Also, laws do have effect on parents. Banning parents from abusing children with Christianity means parents go to prison if they do that.
Also, banning education in school and not banning worse education at home is not only logically inconsistent, but only helps Christian parents to indoctrinate children with hate.
Schools must teach about gays, because parents already teach about gays and Christian parents teach lies about gays.
Really, Christians dont want to ban education about gays. No. What they want to ban is positive education about gays. They want to be able to brainwash kids into hating gays, while school is unable to teach the truth.
Readings the first argument, it seems the debate title should be changed. My understanding is high school= 8th grade upwards in usa, so surely by saying LGBTQIA’ is harmful until 6th grade, either means it isn’t harmful after this age (which is high school) and Con concedes or the first point is invalid. Seems like the title or the first argument don’t correlate
Do you wanna have an official debate?
yeah i made i mistake. I meant to argue that chilkdren shoulkdnt be taught it. Thats what my first sentence says in my argument. You shoulkd read it. Have you?
Christianity also promotes lo9ve. In virginia, there was a church who had a rainbow heart on their sign and said that all were welcome. Was that sadistic? Hateful? Intolerant? And whats to stop leftist teachers from teaching hate for relegion? Can parents not have opinions now? Teachers shoulod decide what people think?
Also, you are Con for the topic. This means that you are arguing that it should not be taught in high school. So yeah, good luck with that.
Nice job promoting hating some people (christians) but giving equality for other (LGBTQ). I do remember when people threw their sons out. Teaching about it is gonna make more gays sons to get thrown out. Teaching children isnt gonna change the parents. And you said teenage sons. I want teenagers to be taught about this stuff. Not any younger. Im im for teaching evolution, not creation. Because its science. Gender ideology isnt science.
Oh I see now. You want to ban schools from teaching children about gays, but not ban parents from teaching children about hell and gays. Smart move. That way, Christian parents can lie to their kids about hell and gays, and schools are banned from teaching the actual truth. Clever move, I must say. Clever double standard. Nice inconsistent logic where same education is both allowed and banned at the same time in the same country using no consistent logic whatsoever. Its interesting how you have no problem with teaching children about sadistic God masked as holy good and gays being judged, but teaching gays or sex in school is just too much. Remember when Christian parents threw their teenage sons out, making them homeless, just because they were gay? Yeah, lets forget all the history. Should it be illegal for parents to teach their kids Christianity, since Christianity promotes sadism, hate and intolerance? Why would parents have a right to insert fear into child's mind?
And whos to say that completely switching your gender based off what you wear and your makeup makes you a woman, but genetics and bio do not, even as men get breast implants to say they are a woman. But yes, thats more truth than cristianity. Also, i said nothing against talking about gayness. Just teaching it. But im more against the TIA+ part.
We dont teach hell in school. Also, im arguing that we should onluy teach about this in hig school. NOt that we shouldnt teach it at all. DO we teach the "real truth" of other sexual topics with 5 year olds? I hope not.
Also, your topic is about high school and you talk about 5 year olds. Maybe in your country 5 year olds go to high school.
So you are saying that 5 year olds should be denied of real truth.
Hey, if someone taught me about gay at age 5, I wouldnt mind. I was called gay as a kid, but I dont think thats same education.
Lets not forget whataboutism. What about all those Christians? Sure, lets teach a 5 year old that people burn alive in hell, but no, lets not teach them the truth about something that actually exists.
I think that my LGB shouldn't be grouped with the TQIA+. And that it shouldn't be taught to 5 year olds. But that's just me being hateful, right?
Why you no love?
I hope no one is gonna call me a bigot for this lol