The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 62520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Would you support legislation that prevented landlords and property owners of rental properties from requiring children between 18-25 who are still living at home to be added to a family's current or pending lease?


first off I'm kinda confused with this debate but it seem to be an interesting topic and my mother is a Realtor so I have some information about this topic...but first of all after a contract is written for a house for buying the written agreement for buy the house you add the owners name and you cannot change the names unless all property owner have deceased. also their the bank loans that have the same two names if the children added to the contract be liable to pay the mortgage? when property exchanges there has to be some form of money or thing of value for the contract so if the new names were added would they have to buy a percentage of the property?

also in a renters agreement their is a down payment just in case of property damage or for little fixes, but you cannot add to the renters agreement after the names have been signed so if there was such a rule change would the new mane have to put a down payment on the house? or pay for a house inspection because they are now in a legal contract?

these are all just question for the first round debate but if this is maybe going to happen there is many thing that would be very confusing for the land owners and renters and some difficult problems. thank you and you can answer all these questions and hopefully some more so I may debate this topic further
Debate Round No. 1


This is less a debate as it is more a question. In many states after the first year of renting a property, the tenant or tenants are on a month-to-month lease. However, prior to that time, potential renters who are 18 years of age or older are required to have their name on the lease. Minors as you know are not allowed to enter into contracts. In some instances, when family members who have been living in the house turn 18; the family is required to sign a new lease which will include all adults living in the unit.

Our concern is adding an 18 year or older child who is basically relying on their parents for financial support to the lease is simply wrong. We profess just as with health care, children should be allowed to stay off the lease until they reach the age of 26. Just like parents can keep their children on their health care until they turn 26 years of age. We have witness families suffer fiscal issues, fall behind on their rent and every adult 18 years and over has the failure to pay rent on their credit, even if the children (18-26) are technically just living with mom and dad.

I would suspect this concern does not apply to the purchase of a home, given the many factors you just stated.

However, forcing families to add college enrolled children to their lease in our opinion has the potential to damage the credit of many low to moderate income families who rent at a higher than most other families.

Please stay connected. Our next debate will discuss housing and discrimination, should Realtors who knowingly discriminate and or found to have done so be prevented from every working as a Realtor?


in which state are we talking about please bring some evidence to the table for this debate because im not really knowing what this debate is about because in my recent research i have found nothing about this is the 18 is added to the lease then the parents who have to star the lease all over again and none of this seem logical because if a teen is added to a contract he would also have to go through the bank and be approved i would think and if the kid is in college making close to nothing he couldnt be put on the lease agreement i would think and arnt you suppose to be supporting this not going in my favor?
Debate Round No. 2


Not sure what you are saying, but this is the law in MD, DC, VA and many others. Which states did you find did not have this law/requirement? I do not believe children should be added to a lease or be expected to have to be added to a lease once they turn 18.


then if you are not for it then you should be con not pro so restart this debate if youd like and ill come up with a debate but you have clearly sided with me on this thanks for opening my mind and this was clearly a one sided debate thanks and government debates are always fun
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Most times it is always having government step in with force to get things done.I am mostly libertarian. If a landlord dose that , a person should have only 2 options. Do it or move.
Posted by Forestoftherain 2 years ago
First and foremost, your response displays why it is so hard to have open and honest debates. "I am I am tired of is people like you getting government involved" No where do we indicate we want government involve? We simply presented a question is it fair or not fair to have children added to their parents' lease once they turn 18? . We wanted to garner opinions and views on the subject matter.

However, for the record, our organization does not support laws that provide or give landlords the right to have children who are clearly living with their parents added to the lease between the ages 18-26. That is a government involvement we do not support.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
It depends on the wording of the contract.What I am tired of is people like you getting government involved.
Posted by apb4y 2 years ago
On what grounds could they? The contract is with the parents; who the parents let live with them is their own business.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate never really got off the ground. Incidentally, I didn't find Pro's statements regarding the lease compelling--he seems to not understand that, though children can be on their parents insurance, they *have to be put on the insurance*--he didn't differentiate how that would be different from *putting them on the lease*. He seems to think that if the parents don't pay rent, the *adult* children shouldn't have to suffer any consequences for the failure to pay rent--and I think he'd rather need a lot more argumentation to justify that.