Should parents choose who you date? should have a say in your love life
Debate Rounds (5)
My opponent only asked questions in her opening round, so I'll just go ahead and answer a few.
"In this day and age should your parents choose who you date? "
Yes. The reasoning is pretty simple really.
First, let's look at the main goal of a relationship. They have an evolutionary reason to exist. That reason being that they promote the possibility of reproduction. As we know, reproduction is vital to our species.
Second, let's look at parents. No only have they successfully had a relationship, but they also have been able to produce offspring. So, they acheived the main goal of a relationship. This means they have knowledge of with who and how a successful relationship can emerge.
Finally, with that in mind, we can conclude that parents are more able to judge who would be best to attain the core goal of dating. Not only that, but them doing so is a benefit to the species. So it would make sense that parents choose who their daughter date.
"Should they refuse you to date a person because of their financial status or status in the society?"
Financial status and social status are 2 very important aspects of society. They are what the majority of people strive for. It would only be logical that a parent want his/her child to date a person that excels in these areas. That person will likely end up being better equipped to handle and protect his girlfriend.
"Do they have a right to meddle in your love life?"
Not an inherent right, but it's not like they need one. Parents are the gaurdians of a child. As such they take responsibility and also have power over the child. Not to mention the whole "You came from them" argument. The love life of the child is no different from any other aspect of it's life and holds no special right from the meddling of parents.
II. Closing Remarks
That's about it. My construct is held within my answers.
Back to Con.
I would agree with you if on all those points IF I have not seen what damage this does to people.
1. If a parent is choosing your partner then what is the sense of free will?
2. A parent has the right to many things, but in the same way should accept their child's decision
3.I agree that financial stability is important and vital, but two heads are better than one, we should think of how WE can improve our financial status not how one party can.
4. If this child is an adult 18+ they have a right to date whoever they want, regardless of their financial status or marital gain. at the age 0f 19 or even 20 you are not thinking of marriage, anything can happen in between.
Most parents look at in their daughter's example: Can he provide for them, what is his social status, financial status and is he of our class. He can have all the above but lack one vital thing Love and respect. If he feels he is the sole bread winner he will look down at his girlfriend/wife and will not value his partner's efforts. Which happens so much in our society today. If most women were be given a second chance to choose they would not choose their current spouse, perhaps he was their parents choice. But if it was their choice then they will not blame anyone but themselves.
Parents should allow their children to choose who to date because after all they(parents) also would not have wished to have been told who they should date. we are not living in the 18th century where people weren't allowed to choose who they dated or married, most of these marriages never lasted, and where they did it was not a happy one. If a parent is also making a decision based upon their own fears thinking from the head & not through the heart with love support, empathy & compassion how is it a unbiased decision.
Back to pro
1. Why does there need to be a sense of free will? You wouldn't let you're kid rummage around the medicine cabinet to give her a sense of free will.
2. True, but a parent is not required to accept his/her child's decision. A parent makes the decision by being an impartial 3rd party nad therefore more objective. Actually, they aren't even impartial. The parent naturally has your best interest in mind.
3. Why is improving a financia status better than having a good one to start with? It's better to start with good financial stability and improve on that than start with bad stability.
4. Children above 18 do have the right to date whoever they want. That doesn't mean that his/her parent shouldn't have a say in your love life. They have a natural desire for their kid to be with best person possible. All you're basing your decision off of is mere limmerence, which is not an objective benefit.
Next, my opponent goes on with saying that a parent will only base their decision off solely social status and financial stability. This is generally untrue as a a parent would most likely flip out if a man started disrespecting their child. Love on the other hand is ony thing a parent can't objectively look at as a pro or con. Since of coure they aren't the ones experiencing it. However, rational thinking would put stability and success of a mere chemical reaction.
Finally, my opponent continues her argument by saying that generally, forced marriage leads to an unhappy one. I completely agree, but nobody is arguing about marriage, were talking about dating. The difference is dating is a method of trial for a relationship. Marriage being the decision that is made if the couple has chemistry. Parents having a say in who you date is simply a means of showing the option, in hope that a good spouse will appear. Marriage is something that should be left up to the child, as confirmation that they want to spend their life with said that person.
Back to Con.
1st of all children have a right to be with whomever they want and while I agree that parents have a say ultimately its the child's decision after all it is their life. Haven't you heard that two heads are better than one, you cannot rely on one parties salary, when both salaries are combined most of the times it is enough. So much could happen in between life one might get elevated, or fired so basing a relationship on financial status's not only wrong but foolish in my view, dating also doesn't mean you will get married to the man/woman it mostly a trial and error case. It may or may not work out. when it is all said and done the parents should therefore step aside and watch from a distance, if they spot something they should be careful when approaching their child.
"Haven't you heard that two heads are better than one"
Certainly have, however that's irrelevant because regardless of whether the child chooses who she dates or her parents, they will always be a couple. There isn't a sitaution where there is only one person in the relationship.
"you cannot rely on one parties salary, when both salaries are combined most of the times it is enough. "
I never said you needed too. It's completely reasonable to think that a man with a good financial status and the girl both provide for eachother. Just because the parent's chose the partner that doesn't mean the daughter can't put in her own salary. So combining an average salary from the female with a good salary from the male is better than both providing an average salary.
"So much could happen in between life one might get elevated, or fired so basing a relationship on financial status's not only wrong but foolish in my view,"
You could literally make this argument for basing a relationship on anything. Simply vaguely assuming "life might change for the better" is not enough. One has to consider the current situation and base the decsion on how things will likely play out from there.
"dating also doesn't mean you will get married to the man/woman it mostly a trial and error case. It may or may not work out."
Did I not provide that exact argument in my last round? Dating is a testing phase. I'm saying that it makes sense for parent's to show different options to their child while allowing her to make the final decision on marriage. It's not like the parent's are the ones deciding who she marries, just giving her well-adjusted options. What's the harm in that?
I'll restate my point.
Parent's understand what makes a relationship work. They obviously had to. Therefore, them being responsible for showing their child options they think are best is completely reasonable. On the other hand, the child bases her choice on solely limmerence and nothing more objective. Out of the two, parents seem like the better option.
monicachege forfeited this round.
monicachege forfeited this round.
Extended to final round. Con loss by means of forfeit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.