The Instigator
kyro90
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Homo_Sacer
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Parents have no right to decide their childs future.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
Homo_Sacer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,091 times Debate No: 19534
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

kyro90

Pro

The First round will ONLY BE FOR ACCEPTANCE! So, I am for Parents NOT being responsible for picking their children's future(Careers, Collages anything that can change the child's position in society)
Homo_Sacer

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
kyro90

Pro

Great. Now then, we start. First of all, I dont think they should decide their future because children that soon develop into adults have their own minds. Although they are supposed to be a bit of genetic copies of their parents they still have a mind of their own. As said by a person that I cannot remember, "Imagination is what makes the world go round." or something like that... Anyway, Kids also deserve to have their own oppinions. Now like myself, I am never allowed to have my own oppinion, nor allowed to pick what jobs I am able to occupy and I think of myself as a very creative guy who demands to have his ideas out their for the world to see. I am pretty sure that tons of kids around the world have ideas that could MAYBE get our horrible state out of economic failure. As you can see I have a website that also Shows a survey of people who decide if parents should play a role in their kids future Which I will post in the link section of course.....


Links
1. Survey= http://debates.juggle.com...;
2. A persons decision/life story= http://www.streetdirectory.com...
Homo_Sacer

Con

Though I appreciate Kyro's opening arguments, I am unconvinced that they allow sufficient room for complexity and nuance. Consider his thesis:

"I don't think they should decide their future because children that soon develop into adults have their own minds."

It is certainly true, to an extent, that developing children have their own minds; however, by focusing solely on childrens' developing rationality, Kyro neglects other dimensions of childhood identity construction. In Diana Meyers' Being Yourself [1], she argues that, in fact, there are five dimensions to the self, and that the best way to capture the truth about the development of an individual's autonomy is to take a decentralized approach which recognizes that placing excessive emphasis on any single dimension of human experience grossly oversimplifies human agency and identity. The dimensions Meyers lists are as follows:

1. Unitary - The unitary self is the role typically assigned to agents, and denotes a view of the self as a kind of "central controller" which oversees decision-making. This view of the self casts individuals as atomistic, independent, self-directed, and inescapably rational, claiming that the self is a kind of essential homonculus in terms of which agency is represented, and in light of which actors are conceptualized.

2. Social - The social self is an identity whose construction occurs in the context of social influences such as cultural norms or overarching social narratives (e.g. race relations, dominant economic theory, religion).

3. Relational - Much like the social, the relational self refers to identity construction which occurs, rather than through formative social pressures, in the context of one's interpersonal relationships. In other words, relational theories of the self tend to emphasize that one cannot abstract an individual outside of her network of inter-agent relations without losing critical identity-conferring information.

4. Divided - The psychoanalytic (or "divided") self refers very much to self-image, denoting the construction of an identity through a feedback loop bridging the gap between one's conscious thoughts and subconscious desires. There is a kind of mutual, level-crossing influence between the two by means of which agents constantly reevaluate, rehape, and redefine themselves, particularly with respect to the way they see and understand themselves.

5. Bodily - The bodily self has to do with the role of the body in processing agential experience. Though bodily continuity itself may not be a necessary condition for the temporal persistence of a self, the persistence and internalization of bodily experiences, such as phantom limb syndrome [2] in amputees or recurring pains in trauma victims, demonstrates a uniquely psycho-physical dimension of selfhood.

With this exposition in mind, let's step back into the argument. As I noted, Kyro seems to focus too much on the developing rationality of children, i.e. the unitary self, thereby neglecting other important concerns, e.g. the social and relational selves. Though a balance between each of these self-shaping forces is key for any individual, it is particularly critical to children to strike the right balance, as the influences to which they are exposed during their formative years determine, in large part, the sort of agents these children will become.

Naturally, there are figures who specialize in assisting children in their development during this time. Teachers, doctors, and other traditional authority figures help parents to divide the labor of child-rearing, not only by means of the knowledge they possess, but also through the perspectives and norms which they can (and often do) pass on to the children with whom they interact. This being said, however, it isn't clear to me that, to an extent, parents should have a decisive say about the direction of a child's life. Certainly, there are cases in which parental intervention may be inappropriate. The parents of a grown woman of 25, for example, don't appear to have any clear justification for demanding that she wear something more conservative, even if they do disapprove of her taste in clothing. However, there are also cases where parental intervention seems not only permissible, but praiseworthy. Consider a child who wishes to eat McDonald's every day. We might think, in this situation, that it's perfectly appropriate for the parent to refuse.

Yet, you may object, claiming that the parent's interest in spending his money in a more constructive way justifies his intervention. Should you object in such a way, consider a further proposition: inherent in the very nature of parenthood is the obligation to make choices for the sake of a child's well-being--choices which, invariably, will affect the way that child integrates into the wider world. Determining how to educate a child, for example, impacts the kind of curricula to which the child is exposed, the network of relationships the child develops, the kinds of norms he will internalize as he grows older, etc. In fact, merely interacting with a child runs the risk of that child internalizing some observed behavior, perhaps developing some pattern of behavior which influences the kinds of employment opportunities to which he has access. Teaching pacifism, contrasted with physical abuse, impacts the sorts of norms by which a child might choose to abide. Therefore, we must conclude, because parenthood necessarily involves at least some control over a child's future, that the right of parents to govern their children ought to be recognized. As noted prior, we must also recognize nuance: it is true that not all cases of parental intervention are justified; however, this does not mean that parents have "no right" to decide their child's future. Such a generalization fails to capture adequately the intricacies of parenting, e.g. deciding how to introduce one's children to notions of gender.

At the same time, I sympathize with Kyro's fundamental contention that parents should not be totalitarian in governing the lives of their children. Sending a child to private school is one thing; meticulously planning which college a child will attend, what majors and minors a child will enroll it, what job to take, what romantic partner to have, etc. is, I think, a far cry from justifiable intervention. Though a bright line is, of course, difficult to establish, we might find answers in the development of unitary competencies. As an individual is opened up to his own independent agency, it might be prudent for the parents to take their places as advisors, rather than governors. When to loosen the grip on the reins is a contentious, complicated issue, perhaps one which parents and kids are best-served working out amongst themselves.

If anything, the difficulty of drawing a line in the sand seems to highlight that, rather than making generalizations about parental responsibility, we ought to recognize that shades of grey do exist, and that, even if there isn't a clear threshold, there are at least some cases to which we can point and say "Yes, the parent does have the right to make the final call."

[1] http://books.google.com...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kyro90

Pro

Wow... *_*... Well that sure was alote....


Since im all out of ideas, ive only got one thing to say....


Parents Should not pick their childs careers because kids have the right(If they even have any rights...) to at least choose what they want to be because usually as said by a teacher.... "Your first awnser is always correct."


Ok Im finished with that... (This was VERY SHORT.....)


Homo_Sacer

Con

My commentary here shall also be rather brief in light of the fact that Kyro's reply was quite short.

In essence, Kyro's counterargument is that, because children have a right to self-determination, parents ought not pick their children's careers. While certainly true, I think his rejoinder lacks discussion of the complex dimensions of this case which I touched on in the previous round. For example, he leaves unaddressed my objection that children in their formative years are unlikely to possess well-developed unitary competencies, relying more on interpersonal relationships and bodily experiences to define their early selves. Because of their inability to access this psychological domain of self-direction, it seems null to say that children possess such a right.

Additionally, I noted that an inherent feature of parenthood, governance, requires parents to make certain decisions regarding their children which will have a significant impact on both the childrens' identity construction and, ultimately, the children's future as agents. A parent must choose what sort of school to put their child through, how and whether to introduce him to gender norms, and so on. Thus, it is not only necessary, but also outright unavoidable, that parents make decisions influencing the development of their children. While, as I proposed in the last round, there are certainly cases in which parental intervention is likely unwarranted, there are equally-clear cases in which is not only justifiable, but perhaps obligatory.

So, while I sympathize with the sentiment that parents ought to refrain from interfering with a child's self-direction and creativity, I think it's also true that, by their very role as parents, they cannot avoid making certain decisions which will inevitably impact the child's future.
Debate Round No. 3
kyro90

Pro

Alright! I have more confidence since that argument was short! ^_^ Anyway this is my debate...

First of all, id like to counter his responces(Note to self: Add exceptions... -_-):
1. I think that parents should allowed to pick their future UNTIL the time is right. As in until they are old enough to make their own desidions.
2. Parents are still allowed to tell them what they think is the right road for them to take, though, They do not always have to obey and take that desired path the parent wants.
3. Most children do not obtain allowences nor am able to get jobs for money during this bad economy so they should be exempted for having to pay for things like school funds and bills that they started.

Now that that is taken care of time for my real argument....

Under 18
Obveosly if you are under 18 you are 1. Not allowed to live nor be on your own.
and 2. You cannot pay or buy certain things that are needed for everyday life in some cases.
Because of that, they arent allowed to do anything that they want. BUT if they reach the age of things like marriage, Drinking age, Driving age, then they can do those things that lead to adulthood and send them off to a job that they want. What that means is that when your an adult you can make any desidion you desire so long as it doesnt cost you something that you cannot offord. Yet still adults are working and paying taxes they do not want because parents made them apply for that job, or sign up for that school or whatever made them into what they are.

Homo_Sacer

Con

I'd like to start off by expressing my excitement that Kyro and I have, as I understand, come to a kind of agreement. Though the resolution is a generalization about parental rights, Kyro seems to have adopted some of the intricacies of parental responsibility which I've discussed during the last couple of rounds. Consider his first comment:

"I think that parents should [be] allowed to pick their future UNTIL the time is right. As in until they are old enough to make their own desidions [sic]."

Though I may certainly be mistaken, it seems that Kyro has adopted the position I suggest previously: specifically, the proposition that, though there may be certain cases, such as those where a fully-developed child is making life-decisions) in which parental intervention is not justified, there are also cases, largely including periods during the child's formative years (during which, as I've argued, a child's unitary capacities have not yet sufficiently developed), in which parental intervention does seem warranted. While this has been a productive conversation, I would urge you all, as Kyro seems, to an extent, to have done, to adopt my position.

To address his other responses though: the second claims, as I have argued previously, that parents should eventually relegate themselves to a purely advisory role, dispensing what wisdom they may have to inform their children's decision. Again, it seems that Kyro has come to agree with my advocacy in this respect; however, his final counterargument claims that, because of childrens' general inability to be financially independent, they should not have to foot the bill, as it were, for certain classes of expenses, e.g. tuition and bills. I think, though this breaches an interesting question, that this is not entirely relevant to the question of whether parents have any right to intervene in the lives of their children, and should therefore be exempted from your evaluation of this discussion.

In closing, I think the argument constructs at the end of his Round 4 commentary captures very much the sentiments we all likely share, namely that, once children reach the age of majority (or the age of independence, if you'd like), the ability of parents to intervene in those individuals' lives is significantly diminished, if not outright eliminated. Be that as it may, however, the primary point of interest is Kyro and I agree on the fundamental claim that, at least in some cases, there is a clear parental right to intervene in the lives of children.

I want to briefly thank Kyro for the arguments presented, and I want to express my joy over the agreement upon which we seem to have settled. Thank you for the constructive discussion, Kyro.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Err sorry vmpire321 sorry I was typing fast.. *_*
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Lol thank you fOr lying for me vpire321 lol...
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Lol Yes everyone. I failed, I know....
Posted by mahamsiddiqui 5 years ago
mahamsiddiqui
sometimes children are wrong while choosing their career......they should at least listen to what their parents are saying......after all the are more experienced......but at the same time parents should not emphasize their opinions on their child they also should understand the child's motive.....thats all i want to say about this topic...
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Well, I guess thats an exception maybe? Idk maybe they should be allowed to help them UNTIL they do not need helping which should be at 18?
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
nothing decides a child's future more than surviving, ergo, you must be arguing that parents have no responsibility to keep their child alive.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
oh, I know a great semantics for this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
kyro90Homo_SacerTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Close one...
Vote Placed by JakeBoatman96 5 years ago
JakeBoatman96
kyro90Homo_SacerTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro, I agree with you all the way, but you gotta admit, you failed to make any convincing arguments. Edge to Con.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
kyro90Homo_SacerTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: kyro90 did post reasonable survey websites to back up his point on some statistics. Con's arguments were more persuasive, but that may be do to the mindset i have already that parents should decide there kids future unless its a bad choice.