The Instigator
Megzayboo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Parents are to blame for the childrens behaviour

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,274 times Debate No: 9661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Megzayboo

Pro

I stand pro for the follwing statment,

ELABORATION.

<> Parents seem to blame there children for there erratic behaviour growing up
Although it can be justified that the behaviour can be pressured by peers,
Children are brought up to know the rights and wrongs and therefore children ,teens wouldn"t have such a difficult childhood if they had parents they could aspire and look up to.

i descry to have someone who is serious about this subject and can stand as a strong Con.

Thanks
Cody_Franklin

Con

I must thank my opponent for the topic, one that I find to be very original, and also very debatable.

Con Thesis: While parents need to attempt to raise their child correctly, we must understand that they cannot work miracles, and that, at some point, whether at home, or out in society, a child is almost bound to act up at some point. With the children being minors, parents are often held accountable for the child's actions; though I agree that parents need to do their best to encourage good behavior in their children, I can't agree with Pro that, in any case in which a child 'acts out', the parent(s) are the direct cause of the event.

Contention I - Parents are not always the cause of a child's social behavior.

As my opponent admits in her opening arguments, a child's peers can heavily influence a a child into doing something that, ordinarily, he/she would not do. This is what we call 'peer pressure' [http://library.thinkquest.org...]. Being pressured by one's social group is a powerful motivator for children, because, since they feel comfortable with the group, and believe that they are among friends, children will be far more likely to engage in some activity at a friend's request; furthermore, a child may also give in to peer pressure because they fear abandonment by their peers if they do not go through with an action. Even if a parent tells a child that stealing is wrong, a child's group of 'friends' could tell the child to steal a candy bar, because it's "fun", or because the child will fit in better if he/she takes it [http://kidshealth.org...]. When it comes down to it, the child has to personally weigh parental teachings against social pressure; for those that give in to their peers, it's clear that the parents did all that they could, but aren't to blame for the acts committed.

Contention II - Parents can't be perpetually accountable for their children.

It's a simple fact that parents cannot keep watch over their children 100% of the time, just like the police cannot watch the actions of every citizen at all times. When a child goes out with friends, for example, the parent can only trust the child not to engage in any socially unacceptable behavior. Also, we can look at the government in this scenario. The government makes laws, and puts children through school, to show them how to be good citizens, and how to interact with others in civil society. This also places a lot of accountability on the government, since school can account for approximately the 13 years of a child's life in which he/she develops the most. The point I am making, though, is that, like the government, the parents can only set a child in the right direction, and hope that he/she follows the path. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Contention III - Rebellion is a natural part of child development.

"As part of their development into young adults, humans must develop an identity independent from their parents or family and a capacity for independent decision-making." [http://en.wikipedia.org...] A child's parents can teach the child all the rights/wrongs of the world, but ultimately, teenagers are bound to want to become their own person as their mind develops and they become more autonomous. Often, as a part of rebellion, teenagers will do the exact opposite of what their parents ask, as a way of asserting their independence. Clearly, parents cannot be blamed for something that is simply a natural part of maturity and development. In fact, the more that a parent intervenes during this stage, the more likely it becomes that a child will act out in rash, irrational ways. As teenagers become increasingly independent, they also become increasingly accountable for their actions, which prepares them for adulthood, and life in general society. At some point, we must realize that parental accountability has its limits, and even detriments, when it comes to child development.

This concludes my opening arguments. I hope that I was a 'strong enough' Con for my opponent, and I wish Pro the best of luck in the coming rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
Megzayboo

Pro

I thank my opponent to challenging to this Debate.

Firstly Children Learn by there parents behaviour growing up, we learn to speak adaquetly or inadaquetly by our parents,
although this can be influenced enviromentally The majority of People growing up learn Home life before Society.
Peer pressure of course is a huge concern but as con stated it is only a motivator and that if a child was fully secure at home , the child would be decisive about bieng involved in such antics.
Research shows that children who have been Brought up in a stable home and family have lead better lifes, this of course is a majority it might not stand for everyone.

- In addition to this research it also shows children who have had drug addict or socially inept parents have either turned to there path or gone into a destructive measure of erratic behaviour.

Parents these days sometimes seem to have a hard time finding a balance between work and family. After long hours at work, many parents just don't have the energy to discipline their kids, and they feel guilty for being gone a lot and tend to try to make up for it by being permissive. This can be a problem, because the children learn quickly that if mom or dad is tired they can get away with anything.

Other times, parents are too strict and controlling. They want the child to be perfect, they have completely ridiculous expectations for their child that they can not ever live up to. This often causes the child to feel discouraged and adopt a "why bother" type attitude of defeat.

When parents have a good balance in their homes and age appropriate expectations for their children, their children usually feel accepted and safe and it shows in their behavior. Children feel more secure when they have good boundaries in place and know what to expect. There are consequences enforced for their actions, and they know ahead of time exactly what will happen. They feel loved and supported, they know their parents care because their parents are involved in their lives.

SOME STATISTICS<>

Children who have had strict Parents who are unsuggestive and deal with there upbringing in a foul manner , Have usually turned to violence or drugs as a way of freedom.

Children who have had abandoment by there parents, 4/10 children have done this to there own child as they can see and think this is acceptable.

Some children dont always see themselves in an " ideal " life but have the capability to be strong and deal with situations, Con explains- "just like the police tries to control citizens all the time Parents cant always control there kids"
Though this is true, Parents cant always be there for there kids and an amount of trust is always good, but as a small child we learn to copy our parents we see hear sense things, a strong trust bond with parents gives children a higher matturity level, but this sadly isnt always the case.. A mother could say to his young boy " dont do drugs" Dont smoke- dont get into trouble, but the mother dosent always understand a childs enviornment today , she should speak to her child there should be a clear understandment on both sides.

Though a parent cant always be accountable for a teen/childs actions , it is always influenced by home.

In many cases this has been true
for People who have destructed to murder, For example

Ted Bundy - His actions were dispicable, he was mentally enraged and sickened, but in a brief interview he said He was always let down growing up by the women in his life , He also said his mother never shown him respect or stability.. This growing up gave him a different view on how he saw women, Nobody can say ted bundys Mother was to blame, but like i said it was an influence.

Just like many of Convicts the majority have said they suffered with verbal and/or domestic violence growin up at home.
Children of course need limits and detriments, But its important to give children heart to heart discussions , so relate to a child and have a meaninful bond which can help the child learn its rights in the world, so the Child can go into an indepenent Adulthood, Though its rare now a days.

Children / Teens must find an inner voice to speak to there parents but often enough they are scared, This causes mistrust. Some may say what if the child was bieng abused by a teacher/caretaker etc, This is true but if children were brave enough and had good relations with there parents they would feel comfortable telling them
-Also accounted by child psychologist Mary Hieffer.

Nature and nurture differs so much that it can be easily mishaped, But as early years nurture directly correlates with the home, Like i said we spend the majority in home life growing up than out in the social world, So nurture should easily overpower nature , Its only with the childs mind and personality we see this.

In conclusion My arguement still stands, I do believe a childs behaviour is very influenced by home life, what may suggest otherwise differs in peoples homes, But i do speak as a majority and as ive researched various topics concerning this.

((Proverbs 22 and verse 6: Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.))

I thank my opponent for his first arguement which was very intresting and look forward to his next
Cody_Franklin

Con

I'll just skip formalities, and head straight into Round 2. :)

1. Children learn through their parents.

a. Children also learn through school (refer back to my government example in Ctn 2), through social interaction, and through experience. As stated in my case, parents can't always be held accountable for the behavior of their children. They can do their best job, but they can't protect their children from being influenced and motivated by outside factors, such as a group of friends.

b. My opponent even concedes that children "can be influenced environmentally", and that "Peer pressure of course is a huge concern". Just as parental discipline or approval is a motivator for a child, so too is the acceptance of friends, or teachers, or general popularity among the school population. Pro has essentially handed me the round by conceding that parents are not solely accountable for the actions of a child, and that, outside of the home, parents can hardly enforce socially acceptable behavior. In fact, referring to my 3rd ctn reminds us that, in many cases, children will act out as a direct response to parental intervention as a means to assert their own independence.

2. Parental Imbalance

a. While I can agree that many families seem to be imbalanced when it comes to work and family, Pro has yet to prove that this is always a direct cause of social dysfunction in children; as I revealed in Round 1, a child's peers, personal experiences, and social institutions are also responsible for shaping the child's behavior. I, for example, was raised in almost total poverty, lived in a house with a convict, and was dumped on my father's doorstep while my mom moved to Texas with the aforementioned convict, all when I was elementary-aged. So far as I can tell, I turned out alright. I certainly don't stand as a representative for everyone, but it's important to understand that parental background doesn't always account for antisocial behavior in children; correlation does not imply causation.

b. While Pro often speaks of a 'good balance' between child autonomy and parental supervision, she never informs us of exactly where to draw the line. My questions to Pro are, where is this balance? How do parents find it? Are parents solely responsible for establishing boundaries in a child's life? To what extent should a parent be involved in a child's life?

3. "Statistics"

a. I'd like to point out that, beyond tossing around a name here and there, my opponent cites none of the supposed evidence that she uses, which should lead us all to question its credibility.

b. While my opponent states that, out of those who were abandoned as children, 4/10 would go on to do the same, we can flip that statistic, seeing that 6/10 have not. Clearly, her statistic is more fitting for the Con, since, for the majority, children who were abandoned did not follow the same pattern of their behavior that their parents followed, denying much of the causation that my opponent attempts to establish; even for the 4/10 that do follow the same pattern of behavior, my opponent has, as of yet, failed to establish that causality.

c. My opponent concedes the point that parents can't always be around to watch their children, and that they must simply trust a child to act in an acceptable manner. By conceding this, the rest of her argument as moot, as we can both agree that, at the point that the parent must place trust in a child, the parent has transferred responsibility for action to the child him/herself.

d. "As a small child we learn to copy our parents" - While humans may imitate the behavior of older humans at a young age, we must refer back to my 3rd ctn dealing with teenage rebellion, which proves that, even with adequate parental supervision, teenagers are inclined to act contrary to their parents' expectations as a means by which to assert personal independence, and perhaps gain the approval of their peers, as I noted in the previous contentions.

e. "a parent cant always be accountable for a teens/childs actions" - resolution negated.

f. "it is always influenced by home" - As I stated, it's also influenced by schooling, personal experience, and a child's peers; parents are never 100% accountable.

4. Examples

a. http://en.wikipedia.org...

b. Pro probably ought to admit the possibility of Ted Bundy using the "women in his life" as a scapegoat through which he could rationalize, and even justify his actions.

c. "the majority [of convicts] have said they suffered with verbal and/or domestic violence... at home." - Refer to the above point; furthermore, Pro seems to be going off on a tangent on a child's needs growing up, rather than continuing her point on parental accountability for the actions of children.

d. My opponent admits that a child's mistrust of parents is often caused by a child's fear to voice their opinions. If we accept this causality as truth, then the accountability rests with the child for not speaking up; if the parent is unaware of an issue, how can the issue be resolved? It's reminiscent of the fact that only 60% of rapes are reported [http://www.rainn.org...], whether due to embarrassment, shame, or fear of retribution - the same feelings could be shared by a child who is abused by a teacher or other caretaker.

5. Nature vs. Nurture

a. "nurture directly correlates..." - Correlation does not imply causation [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

b. "we spend the majority [of time] in home life..." - I'd like to establish that, with kids spending approximately 6-7 hours at school each day, and probably a few hours with friends (especially during the teenage years), and the remaining hours sleeping, I wouldn't say that the majority of time is spent with one's parents.

c. "I do believe a child's behaviour is very influenced by home life" - this isn't the resolution; the topic states that parents are to blame for the behavior; not that they influence it some, not that the parents are the ones raising the child, but that the parents are ALWAYS accountable for their child's actions, even outside of a home setting. At the point that my opponent is taking steps away from the topic, the resolution is clearly negated.

Also, I'd like to further establish that my opponent left my contentions basically untouched, especially my 3rd ctn dealing with teenage rebellion. With these arguments still standing strong, you now have 3 more reasons to negate.

Good luck in Round 3, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Megzayboo

Pro

Megzayboo forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the final round; extend all of my arguments from Round 2, and vote on those, if you don't default Con anyway.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by stfuss 4 years ago
stfuss
I feel in some of the cases parents should be blamed of the children behavior. If a child is misbehaving at any time, the child need to be taught about the consequences and bad effects of the behavior by the parents, so that the child thinks twice to do it again. If a parent doesn't bother even after experiencing the bad behavior then it will result badly in future. Irrespective of the reasons behind the bad behavior of the child, people blame parents of these children for not providing better parenting. Being a responsible parent one should provide better parenting. It is always beneficial to get educated on various helpful tips on how to provide better parenting for today's troubled teenagers
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I did pick a side?
Posted by Annbella 5 years ago
Annbella
Dude Cody-fRANKLIN YOU ARE DEBATEING THAIS GIRL AND YOU ARE COMMENTING SO PICK A GOD DAMN SIDE!!!
Posted by silntwaves 5 years ago
silntwaves
yes there may be influences, but ultimately the child chooses what he or she does. I say it is both of their faults, and there is no actual way to say HEY! U PARENTS SUCK AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT! or HEY! UR CHILD NEEDS TO GO TO REHAB BECAUSE THEY CANT DO ANYTHING RIGHT! No..it is both their faults.

Parents. Raise your kids right with love and care and just like the debaters said, with a happy balance between work and play :] And being a strict parent doesn't mean you actually doing something right either. :P

Kids. Do what your parents tell you to do, though it may seem stupid at the time. You'll probably understand when your older anyway. You're probably only goanna stay in that same house for 20 years.....so live with it for now.

In conclusion, (here :) parents aren't fully to blame for this. yes, kids are minors so maybe the parents take 90% of the guilt unfairly? I don't know. I wasn't in the debate :] but still. they have that kid jail thingy. so they do get some of the blame,

Right?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - Pro forfeited the final round.
S/G: Tied
Arguments: Con - Pro didn't respond to Con's last arguments, and after extending them through, that's all that was left to vote on.
Sources: Con - Con not only provided sources, but also CITED them all.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I almost thought that this debate would be finished today. :(
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I hate Word. I just noticed that, in my thesis, I tried to move 'at some point' from the end to the beginning of that sentence, yet Word didn't delete it from the spot from which I moved it. Sad day.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by silntwaves 5 years ago
silntwaves
MegzaybooCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
MegzaybooCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06