Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5454

Why don't we show PH vids to the students during sex ed?

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description

How is are future generations know how to have sex, without seeing sex? That is the question, better yet, we should have a mandatory school day where all the current sex ed student will either have to volunteer to make a poster about sexual intercourse, or they will grab a video off of a trusted website explaining and showing a example of how it works, like organisms, and telling the difference between someone who has been raped, or to explain how having a organism doesn't mean you like it. Also we get to beat it inside of said classroom, and then compare, taste or smell the jizz, and take a photo, exclusively for the people who are studying law, knowing if your victim smells like sour jizz, knowing who did what, using that knowledge in real career situations. And hey! Who doesn't want to edge off to their crush legally in front of them. Public Masturbation? No sirree bob, Mr. Saul, I know my rights that day.

Round 1
Pro
#1
As I had stated, there could be multiple benefits from my vision...

  • Funny
     I mean, come on now, the boys would love it! Especially the girls, this would be a huge hit for young adults!

  • Understand the difference between rape and normal sex
        Well, unlike most people, people can understand the difference between unconsented sex and consented sex, allowing a law for defamation against rape is illegal.

  • Less rapists, more edging!
       My name is kind of a lie, I don't edge, but edging can boost test, so why don't we learn from the benefits from it?

  • Voluntary "taste test"
        I had to pause myself writing this but... Why don't we test our jizz to see if we could put it in different recipes! 

  • Biology Benefits (Use of bestiality.) 
      We don't need to see human sex, of course, but it should be mandatory to see how animals mate, putting that to use into future career. 

  • Opt-out
      Not everyone is made for this hardcore stuff, especially me. Opting-out would give kids the sense of comfort that they can choose what they want, or it's too much for them.

  • How do you expect to hit it off, without knowing how to hit it off?
    How would a unknowing virgin (Me for example), not know if my step-sister is stuck in the washing machine with devilish intent? Well, Johnny Sins and his fellow actors to the rescue. 

  • Small penises aren't bad! (Wylted.)
     Maybe if one of the boys are endowing you like crazy! Small D, can give off a huge rocket of... well... something, I don't know.

  • Christians will learn that masturbating is only a sin with lustful intent, though it's not truly advised.
     I mean, you could learn the bible, and don't touch it at all.

  • Appreciate MILFS and DILFS (Hmm... that's a bit off...)
     As a straight man of a wrecked culture, MILFS and DILFS should not be feared, as they are perfect punchline material within a comedy routine.

  • "I like children!" Oh maybe I should phrase that differently.
     It can help prevent the difference between "like" and "like", eh, PH vids are hardcore. (NOT LIKE I KNOW.)
     
  •  Femboy and Tomboy Appreciation
          Ah... Liberals, the cutest things, especially the fit lesbians with the long colored hair... wait what was I saying? 
     How can you be considered "the boys" if you don't understand the beauty of tomboys? Well... I'm actually against this, for a woman should not wear men's clothing, same goes for men, they cannot wear garments of a woman's clothes. 
     
  • Maybe ChristianIsEdging can get a GF? Better yet, actually stop fantasizing? 
     I am surrounded by girls at my school. They seem to hit me off for some reason, heh, silly me. 🐺
Con
#2
        There is no reason why PH videos should be necessary to be shown in a classroom academia, especially that of which is a class taught in Middle or High school. It is important to make a clear distinction between PH videos, Educational sex videos, and sex diagrams. Educational sex videos and sex diagrams - with the implication of teaching - are often shown in sex ed and I support. I do not support however, PH videos with the implication of monetization and objectification. My stance is based off of this distinction, that PH videos are not created for the purpose of education and will not help in academia, it may in fact hurt. I seriously hope you are satire but for the purpose of argument, I will assume you are not.

        In many instances of your case, you are very focused on you as a person. Not academia, not the creators of the PH videos, not even your fellow students (I will add on in just a bit on this one specifically.) You mention "the boys would love it!" and "Why don't we test our jizz to see if we could put it in different recipes!" but it goes without saying that these are juvenile opinions with the intent of adult action. Sex-ed is taught in Middle school or High school depending on your state (in America) but it still goes that Sex-ed is taught to children; not consenting adults who can agree to an orgy of jizz testing and not mature adults who understand the situation of watching pornography in a group setting. Sex-ed is also taught for the implication of education (It's in the name: Sex-education if you didn't know,) and these instances of personal benefit are not educational. Even if kids could "Opt-out" to "give kids the sense of comfort that they can choose what they want," what happens to the kids who aren't intellectually mature enough or emotionally mature enough to make the right pro-active decision of what they want? Parents may also not be suited to be the ones who, say, sign a form of permission for this class(es) due to language barrier, mental/emotional barrier, lack thereof, or cultural bias. You also say that "ChristianIsEdging can get a GF" after watching these videos. This is again a personal opinion, not a benefit for academia. On top of that, this claim is completely unbased and completely biased. You said a few times that edging and masturbating can boost testosterone and be beneficial but these are all easily accessible at home and if they were to occur in a classroom, would be highly illegal! The teacher would probably go to jail while the students would probably face expulsion for misconduct! Children watching porn is also illegal, only adults are allowed to (in America). These arguments are not for the benefit of the classroom as you suggest, they are for the benefit of you.

        Past your selfish arguments, you provide some that may be helpful but I will still debunk. A big claim you make is that these videos can help students differentiate between consensual and non-consensual sex. This would be great if not for the fact that PH videos are unnecessary to that claim. There is no part of a PH video that promotes safe sex, in fact you even said "PH vids are hardcore." PH videos are clearly not helpful in teaching safe sex vs rape. Another possibly beneficial argument is that it might be able to help students understand real sex. You said "Biology Benefits," "Small penises aren't bad!" and "How do you expect to hit it off, without knowing how to hit it off?" but the point of Sex-ed is to teach exactly that: What is safe sex and how to preform it. If that lesson isn't already happening in your sex-ed class, you have a bad curriculum or bad teacher. PH videos are again, unnecessary in this right. I would even say that PH videos are harmful in teaching safe, realistic sex because the actors are typically forced into the industry (societal rape) and kept in there because they cannot get a "real job" that doesn't degrade them to their body.

        You also make a few claims about understanding different peoples' positions in sex but they are very ambiguous. The main line of these cases of Tomboys, Tomgirls, Dilfs, Milfs, animals and children in the position of sex is very based off of societal culture and law. It is a complete slippery slope fallacy to say that students will not understand different "characters" in sex unless they watch videos of those "characters" preforming said sex. Would you also want to show the classroom videos of child porn to "prevent the difference between 'like' and 'like'" children? Well boy do I got news for you! That's called child porn! It is prohibited by federal law! Just read: www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20production,%C2%A7%202252%3B%2018%20U.S.C. Bestiality is also almost completely banned: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20the%20production,%C2%A7%202252%3B%2018%20U.S.C. It is also culturally unnecessary to show videos of different types of people in PH videos. Would you also support showing videos of every ethnicity, every age, every sexual orientation and more peoples just for "educational purposes"? Because I can guarantee you that no one will be learning sex-ed in that class, just porn.

       Even if I were to take in your perspective as an (assumedly) horny adolescent boy, why would I want my PH experiences controlled by my teacher? What say would my school get to tell me what pornography to watch? Of course I don't take this position but I am showing how your position could be quite ironic. To all voters: The choice is obviously clear. PH videos are unnecessary in every claim, take away from real education, and take away from AMERICAN RIGHTS. So don't be a dick: vote for no dicks in the classroom.

:)
Round 2
Pro
#3
I do not support however, PH videos with the implication of monetization and objectification. My stance is based off of this distinction, that PH videos are not created for the purpose of education and will not help in academia, it may in fact hurt. I seriously hope you are satire but for the purpose of argument, I will assume you are not.
   Well, it seems like someone didn't read the tags, but I'll bite. I'll act like a lunatic ig.

In many instances of your case, you are very focused on you as a person.
      You say this and then you proceed to quote me saying,
You mention "the boys would love it!"
     No, I was not being selfish, especially when I said that children should be able to opt-out, without any repercussions, especially when their parents doesn't approve from these activities, and besides, who wouldn't want to goon? (Satire)
"Why don't we test our jizz to see if we could put it in different recipes!" but it goes without saying that these are juvenile opinions with the intent of adult action.
     Not a juvenile opinion, this actually has been backed up by various sources, where volunteering adults tasted someone elses seed. My sentences are satire though, not all of them though... I think... Scientists has proven this with men eating various types of foods, then tried. I wouldn't approve this though, it could lead to STD's and other types of diseases.
 ...but it still goes that Sex-ed is taught to children; not consenting adults who can agree to an orgy of jizz testing and not mature adults who understand the situation of watching pornography in a group setting.
      Re-read this:
  • Opt-out
      Not everyone is made for this hardcore stuff, especially me. Opting-out would give kids the sense of comfort that they can choose what they want, or it's too much for them.
    I know this to my Lord and Savior Jesus, that no child would say, "But mom! I want to know if they're giving out free BJ's?!". Clearly a no, I wouldn't allow my child to have sex, also satire. Oh wait! You said:
Sex-ed is also taught for the implication of education (It's in the name: Sex-education if you didn't know,) and these instances of personal benefit are not educational. Even if kids could "Opt-out" to "give kids the sense of comfort that they can choose what they want," what happens to the kids who aren't intellectually mature enough or emotionally mature enough to make the right pro-active decision of what they want? Parents may also not be suited to be the ones who, say, sign a form of permission for this class(es) due to language barrier, mental/emotional barrier, lack thereof, or cultural bias. 
       Clearly, I must've didn't clarify this. All classes must have a paper that allows them to teach certain things, not only that, but the teachers can see the difference between responsible and stupid. Also, when you note that the parents might have a certain barrier/bias, clearly grown adults who might have these issues, would obviously say no. And that's common sense. To answer your question about the kids who aren't mature mentally, they can just be excluded.
You also say that "ChristianIsEdging can get a GF" after watching these videos. This is again a personal opinion, not a benefit for academia. On top of that, this claim is completely unbased and completely biased. You said a few times that edging and masturbating can boost testosterone and be beneficial but these are all easily accessible at home and if they were to occur in a classroom, would be highly illegal! The teacher would probably go to jail while the students would probably face expulsion for misconduct!
     The first part of me getting a girlfriend? It was me being irrelevant, besides, I have no evidence to back it up. Now, about that part talking about masturbation, there is a pediatrician whose name is Joycelyn Elders, who was the 15th Surgeon General of the U.S, which I may note, that makes her extremely different from any normal pediatrician, discovered that masturbation was actually a health benefit, and that was correct, it prevents any type of prostate cancer, but thanks to that statement, the ruse of her "teaching children how to masturbate" got her to resign a few days afterward. (It was not only a race-related problem, but a gender problem too.) How would people know this without stumbling within the deep web, realizing that your abstinence that sex-ed had taught you, put you at a risk of prostate cancer? And this is what I mean, "the boys" would love it, maybe because their penises will still work after 50 years.
Children watching porn is also illegal, only adults are allowed to (in America). 
     No. Child Porn is illegal, but you can't arrest anybody if a child is watching pornography. It's just a common reaction to hormones reacting to the new bodily functions. If you were referring to middle-schoolers, no, but high-schoolers, yes. Also, noting that learning to become a pediatrician/home therapist (anything that relates to the behavior a child/teen), must acknowledge these videos, not as a bad habit, but as a phase. If a kid accidently stumbles towards a site with soft-porn ads, don't expect anyone to be arrested.
   
    My key takeaway is that you are using a moral compass, forgetting all about the education which one is getting from. Most of my sentences were factual, but most of yours is completely emotion-bound. It doesn't mean that I win the argument, but you spouted a lot of words without any evidence to back it up. Hmm... back it up... sounds familiar.

A big claim you make is that these videos can help students differentiate between consensual and non-consensual sex. This would be great if not for the fact that PH videos are unnecessary to that claim.

No, these aren't related whatsoever, in no context. PH actors was said to consent to these activities.

Con
#4
        Welcome back ladies, gentlemen, and aliens! Today we have a Proboscis monkey giving inaudible, incoherent speech for our amusement!(satire) So sit back, relax, and buy some deliciously overpriced popcorn from our concession stand while we try to make sense of him and his primal hormones. (not satire) (maybe still satire) His primal attitude can best be derived from when he says "I'll bite. I'll act like a lunatic ig." Well audience, don't be so hasty to get scared! We have a tranquility dart known as "refutations" to put this monstrosity to sleep. Without further ado, Act 2:
       You replied to my call out of your selfish bias by bringing up when I quoted you saying "the boys will love it!" but I think you may be misinterpreting what I meant in these cases. I wasn't saying you weren't thinking of the average horny adolescent boy your age, in fact I said "These arguments are not for the benefit of the classroom as you suggest, they are for the benefit of you." I am comparing your position, not as an individual (because I don't know you as an individual) but as a peoples. I compare the benefits of academia's position to your position and the choice seems clear. Your stance is being clouded by your hormones. I will continue to add on to this point throughout this debate.
       In your supposed plan, you make a big point out of opting out. I do not disagree that opting out would necessarily be a bad option, simply it is not enough. For personal reference, I go to an Asian school where lots, if not most parents, cannot read English well enough to sign forms, especially forms of this type of sensitivity. My fear is that parents will sign the slip if the kids ask them to without knowledge of what the class is. (Students often lie and say forms are for trips) On the other hand, there may be vile parents who want to indoctrinate their children to being sexualized, immoral, or unsocial for whatever reason. To summarize your point, I believe it is fair to say that you thought it was "common sense" that "grown adults who might have these issues, would obviously say no." This sentence is a bit unclear and I ask for your clarification in round 3. There are 2 ways I see this sentence. 1: Parents who have a bias (or inability for proper judgement) would obviously deny thereof or 2: Grown adults will obviously say no to this class. Both of which situations do not allow for a proper selection. You also said that mentally unmature kids would be excluded but wouldn't this go against your point of helping education? Should whatever kids deemed improper be subject to exception from all sensitive classes? To never learn about hard to learn history or critical race theory? This seems a very tyrannical approach to education or as you proposed in this case, lack thereof
        This opting out is also ironic to your case because it implies there are those who aren't or shouldn't have to view what you might describe as ultimately beneficial enough to be included in the curriculum. Going back to my line that you have "juvenile opinions with the intent of adult action," You said that there was a source (not to be mentioned however) "where volunteering adults tasted someone elses seed" but this EXACTLY proves my point. These are adult actions, sexual actions, that are illegal for children under the 18 U.S.C. § 1591 "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" article. Again, if consenting adults want to do these activities, I really have no say; the problem arrives however when you support teachers' promotion of sexual activities by children in a classroom. Here's the way I view your opting out plan: 1: no one opts out, everyone is subject to "an orgy of jizz testing" as I state and you state would even "lead to STD's and other types of diseases." 2: Every student opts out so they do not gain "the education which one is getting from" PH videos that you claim. Or 3: A partial (not all) amount of students opt out, granting way for each student to suffer from the detriments of both option 1 and option 2 individually. You state a line in which you misinterpret my stance on your argument as letting kids have sex ("Clearly a no, I wouldn't allow my child to have sex") but I in fact didn't say these children would be having sex, just indulging in sexual activities (HARAM). I even bring up how your argument of understanding representation in sex through PH videos was illegal through the means of child sex and bestiality which you do not respond to. You said that "Child Porn is illegal, but you can't arrest anybody if a child is watching pornography" which is reasonably true, what is illegal however is showing pornography to minors through the CIPA, the Miller Test, and many state House Bills. Your case is explicitly illegal and you have not responded to that point in this debate yet. You brought up the example of Joycelyn Elders who supported masturbation because ejaculation lowered the risk of prostate cancer but failed to bring up that "Parallels are drawn between ejaculation and heroin rush" according to NCBI. And you somehow managed to strawman the bolded line while also not responding to the other points. I said after that, which you also quoted so I know you recognized, "The teacher would probably go to jail while the students would probably face expulsion for misconduct!" which you did not respond to again. The bolded sentence "these are all easily accessible at home and if they were to occur in a classroom, would be highly illegal!" Also shows the illegality of these activities but you instead bring up a general surgeon who was forced to quit because of her opinions, which just so happen to align with yours.

And with that folks, thanks for watching and don't drive home drunk tonight! Wiedersehen und Tschuss!
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
        It was Thomas Gray who once said "Ignorance is Bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." David Hume added on to this when he said "While we are reasoning concerning life, life is gone." I care to digress. What is life but not an interpretation of the universe? Hume would agree on this from his "self or person is not any one impression but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference" ideology. I believe it is only logical to be logical about your surroundings and it is only illogical to be ignorant. Hence, It is only reasonable to have an open discussion with intellectual honesty about a topic. Especially if you instigate that topic. Proposition, the instigator, has had a week and previous knowledge to give a reconstruction of his arguments but yet didn't. So what is a hypocrite but someone who makes a claim that they cannot defend? I find it only ironic the confidence you can have to propagate a motion and not be able to respond after a week of time. It is in my personal belief (and interest) to believe that Christian could not defend his points so he had to forfeit. If my opponent is still interested in a civil discourse, respond in round 4 with responses to my claims. You have no excuse but ignorance to not even respond.
        Speaking of responding, Christian never really responded to my legal argument. I stated multiple times that these sexual activities are illegal. In Round 1: " if they were to occur in a classroom, would be highly illegal! The teacher would probably go to jail while the students would probably face expulsion for misconduct! Children watching porn is also illegal, only adults are allowed to (in America). These arguments are not for the benefit of the classroom as you suggest, they are for the benefit of you." And from Round 2: "These are adult actions, sexual actions, that are illegal for children under the 18 U.S.C. § 1591 "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion" article." My opponent never responded to either of these laws, instead focusing on his own wellbeing. His ideology is a complete disregard of morals and law.
        There isn't much else to say as my opponent did not say anything of me. It seems that the only logical choice is to vote for a coherent ideology, that pornography should not be allowed in school. Let's see if we can get a response from "oh so mighty."

Signing off till next time - Clouror
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet