The Instigator
shooterboss
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XimenBao
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Extremely strict parents are good for children.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
XimenBao
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,134 times Debate No: 16228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

shooterboss

Con

Basic Rules and Agreements:
1. No vulgar, slang, or racist language is allowed.
2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not allowed.
3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes.
4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books and authors.
5. Debaters cannot vote for themselves.
6. To support the brevity of this debate, the character limit of each round is set to 4,000 characters.
7. Plagiarism is not allowed unless it is from one's own source. In other words, you can copy off yourself, but you have to paraphrase other works.

The topic of this debate discusses whether or not strict parents are healthful to children in terms of academic success and later success in life.

I will be taking the Con/Against position of this topic: I do NOT believe strict parents are healthful.

When I say "strict parents," I do not mean the average American families that tell their children to clean their room. I mean the parents like Tiger Mom. (I suggest researching who that is before accepting this debate challenge.)

I wish good luck to my contender in this debate.
XimenBao

Pro

Thanks for creating this challenge, shooterboss.

I've got no problems with the rules you put forward, and per your point 3, that's all for this round.
Debate Round No. 1
shooterboss

Con

It's been a known fact to many that punishment and discipline have been part of parenting for many years. In fact, just recently, the story of a "Tiger Mom" has arisen.

According to the story, Tiger Mom believes that "Chinese mothers are superior." Her daughters, Sophia and Louisa, are not allowed to
"1. attend a sleepover
2. have a playdate
3. be in a school play
4. complain about not being in a school play
5. watch TV or play computer games
6. choose their own extracurricular activities
7. get any grade less than an A
8. not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
9. play any instrument other than the piano or violin
10. not play the piano or violin."

This system of parenting is efficient, but does not help the child any more than "regular" parenting style. Many western parents agree on the same fact: kids should be taught that learning is fun, and brute forcing academic excellence into children is not a good parenting strategy. I hope not to offend anyone with racial stereotypes, but it is a widely known fact that Asian mothers have one priority: forcing academic success. According to them, a lack of success means unsuccessful parenting.

However, neither Sophia nor Louisa have taken anything higher than middle-class jobs. They haven't become Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. They haven't become music stars with neither the piano nor violin, two instruments they spent hours playing on in their childhoods. The only reason why they are famous is that their mother wrote a book about the controversial topic of extreme parenting strategies.

First, I would like to point out the definition of a "happy life". The happy life, as some define it, is a satisfaction of one's existence. When one has a happy life, one is proud in his past achievements and confident in conquering future goals. Tiger Mom, although she has fulfilled these guidelines, adds unnecessary stress and anxiety to her daughters' lives. An average westerner, with a middle or lower-class job, can still be a happier man as long as he enjoys what he does. Not everyone needs to be rich like Bill Gates or popular as Brad Pitt.

It is questionable whether or not Sophia or Louisa are happy with their current occupations. As children, they never chose their own extracurricular activities. Therefore, none of them know any activities they could enjoy or have talents in.

Though Asian mothers do exemplify higher grades and academic success than the rest of the world, this success is not completely beneficial to a child's growing up. Successful lives are not always happy ones. Successful lives are lives where people are proud of what they do, and enjoy what they do. You don't have to be good at something to enjoy it.

(1) http://online.wsj.com...
XimenBao

Pro

First I will talk about goals and definitions, then problems with Con's argumentation, then about evidence for my position.

In R1, pro set the two goals of the debate: academic success and later success in life.

Thus I have to argue that strict parents contribute to their childrens' academic success and later success in life. Con's own argument concedes this for general definitions of success, and Con can only argue his position through adopting an idiosyncratic definition of success.

Con agrees "Asian mothers do exemplify higher grades and academic success than the rest of the world" Con concedes the first half of the debate immediately, leaving only the question of later success in life.

But then Con says, "When one has a happy life, one is proud in his past achievements and confident in conquering future goals. Tiger Mom, although she has fulfilled these guidelines, adds unnecessary stress and anxiety to her daughters' lives."

Dictionary.com gives the relevant definitions of success as:
1. the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors.
2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.
3. a successful performance or achievement (1)

By these definitions, Con's statement means that children of strict parents achieve successes, his only objection is that they are stressed and anxiety in doing so. However, nothing in the definition of success requires the achievements be stress and anxiety free to count as success.

At this point Pro has won the debate, as Con own arguments met the success standards set for Pro.

Now we look at problems with Con's arguments, largely the lack of evidence. Con's evidence that learning should be fun and strict emphasis on academic excellence is bad is solely that unnamed "many western parents" agreed with him. This is insufficient reason to accept his claim.

Con uses the daughters of Amy Chua, the "tiger mom" referenced in the WSJ article, as the remainder his argument. He argues that neither of the daughters is famous nor rich. No evidence is provided for this, and even if it was, success doesn't mean fame and fortune, merely "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors"(1). Further, a sample size of two is not large enough to draw conclusions from and should be disregarded on that basis.

Now I will add some additional evidence to support my case.

My opponent has asked me to defend a parenting style similar in strictness to that promoted by ‘Tiger Mom" Amy Chua. However, in using the WSJ article as his source, Con (likely unintentionally) misrepresents both Chua's parenting and her reasons for telling these stories. In a later interview where she criticized the editing choices in the excerpt used by Con, Chua explains was writing a memoir of her discovery of the limits of strict parenting as she raised her children, not a how-to book. She advocates a middle of the road method between hyper-strict parenting and uninvolved parenting, and allowed her children more choices than implied by that excerpt (2). Her children did have play dates, did have sleepovers, and did have the moderating influence of a less strict father who made sure they had outings, like to waterparks. (3)

Since the ‘tiger mom' target of Amy Chau is actually a style that attempts to balance strong limits and expectations with the needs of the child, I'm happy to defend this kind of authoritative parenting. From a white American perspective it may seem overly strict, but studies have shown that while African-American and Asian-American parenting styles may seem overly strict and restrictive to outsiders, the cultural expectations mean that the child still perceives parental warmth and love (4). As added bonuses, this style of parenting is associated with better diet and nutrition and less problem drinking. (6)

Citation links in comments.
Debate Round No. 2
shooterboss

Con

My apologies to Pro for a shortened round, but I have decided that, although Dictionary.com offers a general definition, the real meaning of "success" in life and the philosophy of happiness varies from person to person. Someone might say success is fame and fortune. Others might say luxuries, while others may say the pure effort put into every accomplishment.

In my eyes, success is the ability to feel proud of one's achievements. For me, that would be conquering difficult tasks and goals.

Many different types of parents support different types of success in their children. Some parents are relaxed and allow their children to be free and happy while they can. Others, such as Tiger Mom, try hard to achieve the best effort in life. My only point now is that Tiger Mom forced one single parenting style and philosophy into her children a little too much.

Congratulations on my opponent for this debate. Though I don't say this often as a conclusion, I have to admit he has high chances of winning.
XimenBao

Pro

I thank Con for posting the final round, and for a gracious debate.

Con's R3 is brief, offering two arguments.

The first is that success should be considered subjective and defined by each individual person. While this is an unsources claim from personal preference, Con goes on to suggest a defintion that success is conquering difficult tasks and goals. Since not conquering difficult tasks and goals was never one of Con's objections to strict parenting, this definition of success leaves him without any offense against my advocacy.

Con's second point is that he feels that Chua used too much of a single parenting style. While Con may indeed feel this way, it does not constitute an negative argument.

Con has not refuted that strict parenting produces feelings of parental warmth and love, or provides later health benefits. Con also did not retract or offer alternative interpretations of his earlier arguments which I argued gave victory to Pro.

Please extend those, and the rest of my argumentation, and vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
shooterbossXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: An utterly dominating performance.
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 6 years ago
ilovedebate
shooterbossXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: asdf
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
shooterbossXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped a lot of arguments, and since definitions were added in the last round it seemed like Con didn't really have an organized plan for this debate. I'd recommend clearer, more concrete definitions at the start of future debates.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
shooterbossXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: `At this point Pro has won the debate, as Con own arguments met the success standards set for Pro.` indeed
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
shooterbossXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CON only uses one citation. PRO shows how CON's logic concedes the resolution. PRO gives evidence that CON does not refute.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
shooterbossXimenBaoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A good debate on a good topic. Pro did a better job of meeting the standards of proof that Con required. Con was caught making a number of unsupported assertions. Pro provided a better understanding of the "tiger mother" style as strict, but not ridiculously so. Con effectively gave and failed to rbut the indiviual points Pro made.