The Instigator
Im_always_right
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

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: 7/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,947 times Debate No: 4829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (14)

 

Im_always_right

Pro

If a child/teen buys an item with his/her money that [s]he bought by working, then the parents should not take the item. We are talking about harmless items i.e. a t-shirt/blue jeans, a CD, an MP3 player/Ipod, or anything else that the parent has not said the child/teen can't have, or the child/teen has not done anything to make the parent believe [s]he should not be allowed to have/use the item.

I will now wait for someone to take this up.
CiRrO

Con

I negate: Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangerous/illegal.

Contention I: Parental Rights

A) Parents have a right to teach their child anyway that want (within limits). If taking something away from their child is the way they wish to discipline them, then they have a legal right to do so. Also, isn't it better and more humane for a parent to take a toy away then be abusive? ^^

B) According to law, until a child is of age (18), anything that is bought is not the "child's" it is the parents. Therefore, the parent has the right to take it away since by law it is theirs.

Contention II: Anything is dangerous

Any possible item bought by a kid/teen could be dangerous. Everything can be sued as a possible weapon. If the parent thinks that a specific item is dangerous to the kid or him/herself then they have a right to take it away. According to the resolution it implies dangerous. Therefore, since all items are dangerous then the parent has a right to take it away.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

I also look froward to a good debate against you again "I'm Always right"
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate CiRrO.

"A) Parents have a right to teach their child anyway that want (within limits). If taking something away from their child is the way they wish to discipline them, then they have a legal right to do so. Also, isn't it better and more humane for a parent to take a toy away then be abusive? ^^"

By saying within limits, my opponent suggests there are and should be limits to how children should be punished. By saying that he opens the window for me to say, parents should deal with their children in a way that does not show the children that theft is acceptable.

The fact that it is less wrong does not make it right. The deffinition of abusive is used for almost all physical punishments. Xera, will slap the hand or face, but she can not even be considered abusive, so define abusive.

B) According to law, until a child is of age (18), anything that is bought is not the "child's" it is the parents. Therefore, the parent has the right to take it away since by law it is theirs.

Yes but this debate is about whether the law should be changed, not what the law is.

"Any possible item bought by a kid/teen could be dangerous. Everything can be sued as a possible weapon. If the parent thinks that a specific item is dangerous to the kid or him/herself then they have a right to take it away. According to the resolution it implies dangerous. Therefore, since all items are dangerous then the parent has a right to take it away."

Any possible item bought by anybody can be dangerous, if an adult buys a set of knives, it COULD be dangerous, so just because something can be dangerous, does not mean that they should not have it. Thus by the time the child had enough money to buy something, the parents should have done their job in teaching the child not to have agressive behavior, thus if the parent cares enough to take he item away as a punishment, then [s]he wont need to, if the child is agressive with the items, and is causing harm, then the parents should be sued.

I await ciRrO's responce.
CiRrO

Con

"By saying within limits, my opponent suggests there are and should be limits to how children should be punished. By saying that he opens the window for me to say, parents should deal with their children in a way that does not show the children that theft is acceptable."

My Response: When I said within limits I was implying no physical abuse. Also, taking away something doesn't show theft. That's like saying the government can't take money for compensation, etc.

"The fact that it is less wrong does not make it right. The deffinition of abusive is used for almost all physical punishments. Xera, will slap the hand or face, but she can not even be considered abusive, so define abusive."

My Response: Abusive - Extreme use of physical force, e.g. beating.

"Yes but this debate is about whether the law should be changed, not what the law is."

My Response: The resolution never implies legality. You just state the word "should". Therefore, I argue that under law everything bought by a child, essentially belongs to the parent. So, extend this argument.

"Any possible item bought by anybody can be dangerous, if an adult buys a set of knives, it COULD be dangerous, so just because something can be dangerous, does not mean that they should not have it. Thus by the time the child had enough money to buy something, the parents should have done their job in teaching the child not to have agressive behavior, thus if the parent cares enough to take he item away as a punishment, then [s]he wont need to, if the child is agressive with the items, and is causing harm, then the parents should be sued."

My Response: you are not getting my argument. I am saying that since every item could possibly be dangerous, then the resolution is negated. The resolution states that if something is illegal or DANGEROUS, then the parent should have a right to take it away. Just because a parent may teach a child how to use something doesn't negate it's possible dangerousness.
===============================================================================

My opponent has not presented a case of her own, and she has burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Pro

" When I said within limits I was implying no physical abuse. Also, taking away something doesn't show theft. That's like saying the government can't take money for compensation, etc. "

So, you are saying that a parent can teach the child that hitting is not a punishment, BUT if you don't like what someone is doing with their items, they can steal.

"Abusive - Extreme use of physical force, e.g. beating."

So if a parent holds a child, and uses force on the child, so that the child has difficulty moving for a few minutes, that is wrong, but the law of the US (and a sin in Christianity), of theft is not wrong at all, am I correct?

"The resolution never implies legality. You just state the word "should". Therefore, I argue that under law everything bought by a child, essentially belongs to the parent. So, extend this argument."

Yes but by using the word should, it also means that every person is equal, if a child buys soda with $2, that [s]he earned, the soda should be theirs. if the parent wants the soda, the parent should buy it from the store, or the child.

"you are not getting my argument. I am saying that since every item could possibly be dangerous, then the resolution is negated. The resolution states that if something is illegal or DANGEROUS, then the parent should have a right to take it away. Just because a parent may teach a child how to use something doesn't negate it's possible dangerousness."

CiRrO I would like to say this: The resolution says NOTHING about what rights the parent has with dangerous items. All the resolution says is with non-dangerous items, it does not deal with dangerous items at all.
CiRrO

Con

"So, you are saying that a parent can teach the child that hitting is not a punishment, BUT if you don't like what someone is doing with their items, they can steal."

My Response: I am saying that hitting is to extreme as a punishment for a child. However, taking something away shows them that wrong behavior will result in the loss of something good. E.x. When I was about 4, I stole a toy train. My mom found out and she had me return it. As punishment I had to go through: A) Humiliation and B) when I got home I lost my TV privileges. Because of this I never stole again, since I knew that if I did I would lose something I like. This helps teaching kids for society. E.x. If you speed you will get a ticket and lose some hard earned money.

"So if a parent holds a child, and uses force on the child, so that the child has difficulty moving for a few minutes, that is wrong, but the law of the US (and a sin in Christianity), of theft is not wrong at all, am I correct?"

My Response: If a parent physical beats their child, then yes that is wrong. However, taking a toy away is not theft. Theft is defined as: larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully. The law allows a parent to punish a child, within limits, like no physical abuse. Essentially extend my contention 1 against your theft argument. The parent has a right to punish, and the toy is essentially under the parent's control. As long as the child is under the protection and under the roof of the parent, the toy belongs to the parent.

"Yes but by using the word should, it also means that every person is equal, if a child buys soda with $2, that [s]he earned, the soda should be theirs. if the parent wants the soda, the parent should buy it from the store, or the child."

My Response: The soda should be theirs. However the parent has a right to take it. I would assume that most parents would share the soda with the kids. Also, should the parent have a right to suspend food and shelter for the kid because it is their own money? Essentially by universalizing your action for the parent, then you justify the right to take away food and shelter. A family is a unit, essentially. They forfeit rights for each other. The kid is under the parents rule and is until of age (18), or unless the parents neglect the child/abuse him or her. The parents must protect and provide for the children.

"CiRrO I would like to say this: The resolution says NOTHING about what rights the parent has with dangerous items. All the resolution says is with non-dangerous items, it does not deal with dangerous items at all."

My Response: My argument is that the resolution is as follows

"Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal."

This implies that if an item is dangerous, then the parent should be able to take it away. All items are dangerous, therefore parents should have the right to take all items away.
===============================================================================
Voting Issues:

1) My opponent failed to refute my parent's rights argument.
2) My opponent has failed to refute me dangerous item argument
3) My opponent has not made a case of her own, and she is the affirmative.
4) By universalizing my opponents ideas about "theft", she has opened up the justification of parent neglect of the child. Essentially, the parent does not have to provide for the child since the parent has their own money. It doesn't have to be sued on he child.

For these reasons I urge a negation.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by valravera 2 years ago
valravera
This was clearly poorly argued. This is not a yes, or no debate, unless we're getting into the heart-felt/sentimental/moral point of view. Lawfully, there is only one answer, and the answer is yes;parents are NOT allowed to take funds, and or other legal gains from minors, as it is viewed as theft. The law considers it as theft for a person of authority to seize lawfully obtained funds, (Paycheck) and or other legal gains of funds, including minors. Also, in the case of a minor receiving a gift, it is considered as theft for the gift to be taken forcibly back. No one has the right to take away anyone's earned belongings as long as they obtained it legally and are using it for legal purposes, as this would be in violation of and individual's basic human rights and freedom.

Therefore:

If you are a minor and by anyway your parents have pocketed your legal earned money (through taxation, etc) or other legal gains or objects, warn them of your rights and report it if they are consistent of this behaviour.

And for those parents out there who disagree, not to worry, there are always alternative methods of punishment. May I remind you, they do live under your roof (use your electricity, internet, etc). However, you cannot strip them away from their basic human rights (shelter, health care, food, clothing) since the law requires of you to provide for them, and doing otherwise would be considered illegal.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Im_always_right
Im_always_ri
ght
Ragnar, you just prove my case stronger, these days children are a cross between slaves and induntered servants..."

"Just?" I thought I was on your side. A much more extreme version of your side, but still...
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
loo, to be honest I would beg and beg and maybe take it and not let her see the proof you bought it. lol, IDK never been in that exact situitaion, but Xera won't let me get a job so that I can get a car in 3 years when I'm 16, I know her sister is on my side and is willing to hire me, but mom won't let me. And even if i did, she would take the car away if i didn't pay her like $2,000 a month after I buy it myself. I know how it must feel.
Posted by angryteen 8 years ago
angryteen
This might be the only time ill be posting my debate on this but, I am a 13 year old boy and i have been working hard all summer to earn money for 1 or 2 video games and some new shoes maybe, i have more than $100 dollars saved up and i want to use it now. but my mom wont let me and wants me to save it and even after i let her hold onto it and made it clear enough for her to remember that i DONT want to save it i only wanted her to have it so i wouldnt get out of hand with it like buying stuff i dont need. and even after i have asked her multiple times she will not give me a cent of the money that is rightfully mine i think her boyfriend is on my side but she doesnt want to go against her wishes which i completely disagree with and think are completely unfair i wish i knew what to do to get my money and i hope she will let me have it...
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Ragnar, you just prove my case stronger, these days children are a cross between slaves and induntered servants...
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
KingRichard:

universalization does not hold water....in this case anyway...vote con if you want, it's your choice, I have no power over you, but i want you to realize that that point doesn't quite work.

He had brought it up in the last round where I couldn't really go against it. Because they are not equal, children do NOT owe their parents.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Children don't HAVE to do anthing, they do it because they do not wish to be "beatin" or spanked, however you want to say it....Xera says beat, but that is pretty much slang (around her anyway), for any phsycal punishment. Which, grounding, or theft would do no good without. If the parent wont be physical, or has not in the past, in most cases the child will not obay the grounding, and will simply steal the item back, thus it would do no good. so the root of all punishment is physical, thus, why do anything else as a punishment?

This was not an arguement, just my veiw.
Posted by KingRichard 8 years ago
KingRichard
I voted Con because I loved his point about universalization.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Not indentured servants. They (most of them) volunteered for it, unlike a child :D.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
ummm so it was not illegal for Dicey to steal the soda? I bought it, I also had to buy her lunch and a newspaper...in your twisted world, children have as much rights as slaves once did....or maybe I should say indentured servants, since the children need to be fed, watered, and sheltered, in return for their work for a certain amount of time untill they are free.

Is that right?

Also I believe, I covered everything you have said.

if the child has shown responsibility with the item, there is no reason why it should be taken away. EX (I will go for something almost everyone will agree is dangerous)

A 15 year old kid is angry and likes hitting and attacking things. He somehow buys a switchblade knife, (although I believe they can't legally buy switchblades) the parent should take it.

There is a different kid, who likes collecting, and having the knives, all he does is keep them in his room and polishing it. He does nothing wrong, and the parents knew about it from the start. The parent(s) should not take it away, for something like the child, not doing the dishes, or getting a 'C' in school.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Snakepliston 8 years ago
Snakepliston
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by angryteen 8 years ago
angryteen
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberty 8 years ago
liberty
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30