The Instigator
Eddy999
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Diagoras
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Parents should not ground kids

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,427 times Debate No: 18748
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Eddy999

Con

For the opinion of parents, preferably those of young adolescents...

Ever grounded your kid for doing something, only to find out the kid repeated the action once you ended the "period of 'groundation'"? Well my story focuses on that exact subject. In my case, the grounding did nothing. I saw no point in stopping what I was doing because I was not taught why what I did was wrong, I just knew I was being punished. The fact that I didn't know why I would be punished for doing what I was doing just caused me to be angered when I was punished. Rather than just telling their children they can't do anything because they misbehaved, parents should explain what the right thing to do is, and then concentrate on that, instead of focusing on what the child did wrong.
"Daniel, we need to talk." Those words spoken sternly from my father's lips hung in the air, creating an ominous cloud of tense nervous energy between the two of us. I was a slight bit nervous, seeing as usually these "talks" ended with my dad telling me I'm grounded, not like that could happen this time due to the fact I was already grounded. But still, my father had asked, or more demanded I come to him so I had no choice but to see what he wanted. He watched me as I meandered slow and deliberately to the chair across the table. I pulled the chair out and plopped down, purposefully avoiding my father's gaze. I set my elbows on the table and my chin in my hands, then directed my attention to the parent sitting in front of me.
"What were you doing on the computer today?" my father asked in a rather accusatory tone, the look on his face no more reassuring than the cold words flowing from his mouth.

"Do I need to tell you?" I asked, knowing he had already found out I had gotten on the computer, more specifically the Internet earlier that day. Normally, this would not be an issue; but the difference was that I was grounded from using the computer until about two weeks later.

"I'm disappointed that I can't even leave you alone with the computer for an hour" he gave me a look that I think was supposed to make me feel guilty but failed rather miserably. "We need to do something about that."
Now he sounds like a freakin' psychiatrist, I thought. I replied to his statement neither agreeing nor disagreeing by saying "Okay." I added a shrug as if prompting him to tell me what he thought should be done.

"What do you think it will take?" he asked.
What do you think it will take? Quit grounding me and start thinking of real punishments! Of course I didn't verbalize this, I didn't want to cause a fight. But I didn't want to tell him exactly what he wanted to hear either. ‘I don't know.' Was all I said.

"Well I guess we'll talk about it later."

"I guess we will."
The next day, when everyone was gone and I was the only one at home, I sat down at the computer, and logged onto my desktop. I got onto a few sites I frequented, such as yoyogames.com and various media sites. I knew that I would probably get "talked-to" again for using the computer again but I really didn't care since all that would happen is I might get grounded for another week or two but the guidelines for the grounding were never enforced; therefore, there was nothing standing in the way of me and me living my normal life anyways. When I was done I logged off and went about doing homework and chores, waiting for everyone to get home so we could eat dinner.
After dinner, around 7:30 my dad walked to stand next to me and spoke to me again, "Daniel, I was checking the net-nanny thing and I noticed you were on the Internet again." I looked at him, but said nothing. "I'm at my wits end and I don't know what to do. It hurts me that you can't respect me and the guidelines I set for you." His voice sounded a little bit angered and quite flustered. He paused, and looked at me like he thought I should say something. No words left my mouth, so he continued talking: "We're going to have to do something." He seemed to say that every time we talked about something I'd done, but we never did anything different, he would just ground me and then get mad when I went against it.

‘I guess,' was all I said.

The conversation continued for a minute or two, but of course it just ended in my father saying "We'll come back to this but for now you are grounded for an extra two weeks."
Through this experience I realized grounding kids is pointless because no matter what the kid is grounded from, it will not be relevant, this was true in my case when I made some bad choices with how I used certain aspects of the Internet and was restricted from using it at all even for things like homework. This didn't teach me anything because I didn't see any connection between the punishment and the crime, so all that happened is the relationship between me and my parents got tense and hostile. If someone throws a rock at someone else when they are outside do you tell them they can't go outside for a month? Parents should put more effort into finding a punishment that fits the crime and deals with the problem, not one that just creates bitter emotions in the heart of the criminal.
Diagoras

Pro

There are several things wrong with this.

1) eddy999 is "con" to the resolution "parents should not ground their kids." That means he is arguing that they should ground their kids. But since he already posted his argument and this is only 1 round, I will let him have the other side.

2) grounding your kids and teaching them why they are being punished are not mutually exclusive. Meaning both can be done.

3) The entire argument is anecdotal, and so not compatable with a logical argument.

Grounding should be an option for parents when they decide how to punish their children. Teaching their kids why they are being punished should go with any punishment. My opponent provided no logical reasons why grounding should not be used. So there is really nothing more that can be said.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Connor666 5 years ago
Connor666
You got owned bro...
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
1. Your resolution is "Parents should not ground kids" and your position is "Con (against)" which suggests that you are for grounding kids, which contradicts your first argument.

2. Your extreme and overt lack of guilt suggests psychopathy, against which traditional punishments don't work. As a behaviorial outlier there is no way that you should be used as a criteria against which all kids should be measured.

3. Yes, the above is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Psychopathy is a serious condition that requires formal training to diagnos. Nevertheless, the fact that you apparently have no respect for your parents and no desire to cooperate or communicate with them is irrelevant to the general topic.

4. Nice story, though! Stephanie Meyer would be proud! Go Teen wangst!

5. Yes. That's sarcasm.

6. http://tvtropes.org...
Posted by Crede 5 years ago
Crede
This is hilarious.
Posted by Godsconservativegirl 5 years ago
Godsconservativegirl
well, it means you can't debate him because your not the same age as he is and/ or the rank he's in.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria."

What does that mean?
Posted by Bay 5 years ago
Bay
I'm still a teenager, and even though it can be unfair, I still believe in grounding.
Posted by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
Is this a joke?
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Eddy999, I am not sure if you were intending to have a real debate but if so you will almost certainly lose. Your argument sounds more like a story, and you never affirmed that parents should not ground their kids, only that it didn't work in your specific case. Not to mention that it's only 1 round so you have no chance to answer to whatever argument your opponent makes. If you want to have a real debate you can still edit it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Eddy999DiagorasTied
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 really could have made his point in a much more logical way. He also argued the wrong side.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Eddy999DiagorasTied
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 (or is it Pro?) showed how grounding didn't work in his case but he provided no logical reason why grounding can not be effective if properly practiced. Pro showed why grounding kids and teaching kids are two different things, which refutes the basis of Cons argument.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Eddy999DiagorasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "My opponent provided no logical reasons why grounding should not be used. So there is really nothing more that can be said."