Debate on Sex Education, 6 March 2008

My students in biology debated the position "This house believes that sex education should be required by law in the Philippines". Asian Parliamentary format, modified to include an open forum.

Top: Government (LR) Marvin Sy (rebuttal), Julian de Leon (DPM), Benj de Leon (PM). Bottom: Opposition: Sabrina Tan (LO), Judy Alarilla (DLO), Pam Francia (rebuttal).

The main argument of the Government was that sex education, understood as "informing students about the consequences of sex", was needed to bring down the incidences of these consequences, such as unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and the like. The belief was that badly informed people, acting out of curiosity, tend to act irresponsibly, that is, oblivious to the potential unwanted consequences of their actions. Ergo, informing them--which in no way implies forcing them to follow a norm--would make them act more responsibly. As to the curriculum, it would consist of biological and psychological facts; counselling would be included. References to religion and morality were specifically left out of the proposed curriculum; how to use contraceptive methods was also not to be included.

The Opposition's argument was that any information-based program was either not effective in bringing down these incidences, or else might actually increase them because of natural curiosity combined with "hormones". The Opposition pointed out that that the problems of teenage sex were problems not of information but of values. Furthermore, the Opposition argued that the school was not the proper venue, and that it was in the intimacy of the family home that sex should be taught instead.

The audience, acting as adjudicator, found cause in favor of the Opposition, on the grounds that the Government failed to demonstrate with example that a sex education program based solely on information is effective in bringing down the numbers of unwanted consequences. It was pointed out that statistics existed for various countries such as Holland and the United States, but these were not used by the Government. Furthermore, the Government's refusal to include religion in the curriculum of sex education did not address the main cause of the problem, namely, a deterioration of values among the young.

As to technique, there was very good research on both sides, except for the lack of statistics on the effectiveness of sex education in reducing incidences. On the other hand, there was much information provided regarding the incidences of various sex-related problems in the Philippines.

The best speakers in this debate were Pam, Benj, and Marvin. Sabrina, Judy, and Julian made fine performances also. Pam had a fans club in the audience, which I think is understandable, because she has a rather passionate--I would say, even agitated--way of arguing; rivetting and entertaining.

Thanks to RJ Dino for taking the photos.

Coming up next: Is Smeagol guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder? See the blog on March 10.