The Instigator
tim.ray
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FaustianJustice
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Parental authority only exists through possession of capital and property ownership.

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 2 votes the winner is...
FaustianJustice
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 66320
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

tim.ray

Pro

First round is accepting, and initial statements/clarification of ideas.

Parental authority only exists through possession of capital and property ownership.
Discussion based on the reality of parental authority. Parental authority over children(exempting infancy stages, and assuming the child can make definite decisions) is artificial and only exists because the parent ultimately owns the property that the child lives on and all capital and assets that the child is dependent on to fulfill basic and superfluous needs.
FaustianJustice

Con

This is a rather challenging premise, I look forward to debating it. I am working under the assumpt of 'capital' being some variety of resource brokered for goods and services, and property ownership, as mentioned to be a domicile of some kind; apartment, house, etc.

Good luck to pro, I look foward to the first round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
tim.ray

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

I've heard parents say to children over and over, "I'm your parent, do what I say". That saying is completely invalid.

Ultimately, any control, authority, or power that parents have over children is NOT a result of "God given" authority or "deserved respect". Instead it is because the parents own the property and assets that the child needs to survive comfortably. The government reinforces this mode of ownership because generally the idea is that most children will not be able to efficiently own property or assets, therefore the government forces minors to go through the parents in order to personally own titles and assets(unless of course emancipation takes place).
FaustianJustice

Con

For the first round, I would like to expand on one basic premise that has trickled its way into every aspect of humanity, that also is included in parenting:

Might makes right.

A parent is not under any code or obligation to not (and righteously so) lay a whooping down when the situation warrants. Fear of physical reprisal stacks up pretty well in parental authority, quite literally anyone smacking around a kid that wasn't theirs gets a quick stop at county on the way to state. Few people will recall a time when that crushing sense of guilt or worry of a spanking was put down as the cudgel of authority.

Secondly, similar to aspects in the first premise, a parent is under no compunction to actually educate their kid. While this is not resources or capital, it goes to the responsibility of a parent, to which the authority is then derived. Kids, simply put, don't know anything. That is what a parent is for, and generally, that is what kids are looking for: role models, and validations of their assumptions, or correction if needed. Children, and by which, I mean children of all ages, crave a structure to their life. This is a desire for equality, rules to be followed, and a heirarchy to be adopted. When the absence of such a structure is made aparent, kids will even make one up, with no reason! Something I am sure we are all familiar with: the floor is lava. Kids don't need a reason to play, but this imaginative creation of rules gave all present the ability to function in recreation, and gauge how their actions or the actions of others might work with consequences, it implicitly created an authority, even if there was no figure behind it. Parents fill this void, by an authority demonstrating itself, it becomes the role model for which the child strives to be, or learn from, or in the worst cases, use as a cautionary tale later in life.

Time has given validity to this: not always was capital or property available to parents. Tribal and nomadic families of yore had no such contrivancies in which to lorde over their progeny, the sands were always shifting, the game always needed to be chased, and the new additions to the tribe would be poor adults later if the example of their parents was not followed. The parental authority in this instance (and what carries on, I feel) is that the authority is derived from mutual understanding of protection, affection, and validation. None of these are property dependant, and no bank account can purchase.
Debate Round No. 2
tim.ray

Pro

tim.ray forfeited this round.
FaustianJustice

Con

In light of my opponents previous round, I will extend refutes and conclusion into the final round, in good faith that no new arguments are entered.
Debate Round No. 3
tim.ray

Pro

tim.ray forfeited this round.
FaustianJustice

Con

Previous points stand, please vote Con, and be sure to call your loved ones this holiday season.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You are right. All a child has to do to be free from those awful people called parents is get a job, get your own place and pay your own bills.
Posted by james14 2 years ago
james14
Legally parents are responsible for the actions of their children. If that child does not go to school, the parents have to pay truancy fines. I'm not sure whether this helps Pro or Con.

I am interested to see the outcome of this debate.
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
... I can see another piece of evidence that you can use to support your argument that you are not currently using, that the parents effectively own a lot of the rights of those children
Posted by tim.ray 2 years ago
tim.ray
Lmaooooo...
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
I was going to accept the debate, but then I realized I wanted to debate someone else lol.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
tim.rayFaustianJusticeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with many of CON's points, but they were unrefuted. Conduct for FF.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
tim.rayFaustianJusticeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture