The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Should teens under 18 be able to live independently from their parents

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 796 times Debate No: 70366
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Many teens nowadays feel like they need their own space and feel the need to live independently.They feel like their parents do not understand them and put their child against reach parent .The parents make their child believe a certain way when they need to have their own opinion about life.


I can understand where your argument comes from. I attained the age of 17 not 6 months ago, so I am my own witness. I understand that independence is great and all, but let us not hide the fact that they are still children. The need to get your own space is not uncommon. Every teen naturally feels that way one time or another. However, self-sustaining ability, an unyielding legal process, the stage of early development, and more reasons to come, allowing teens to live independently from their parents is a desperate mistake.

I am going to assume certain things.

teens: the years of a person's age from 13 to 19
independently: without outside help; unaided.

For the sake of the debate, I would request sources throughout the argument. Am I also to assume we are following the standard debate procedure:

Round 2 & 3: Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion
Debate Round No. 1


Yes you are correct in assuming that the teens are from 13 to 19 and that they are without outside help.I agree with you that it is indeed a desperate mistake, but also try to see it through a certain point of view such as that the child's parents are divorced.Both parents want for the child to live with them and neither parent wants for the child to live with either parent.The child feels tormented living with either parent.Does not want to live with the parent they are currently living with and is in a war where everyone wants to win.


I will represent my rebuttals next round as agreed. I still haven't seen an argument from my opponent.
First, I will make the case for teens under age 18. Again, I will point out that teens include age 13. At age 13, the mere thought of independence is liberation. That means, in the mind of a 13-year-old, playing your game boy all day, not having to clean your room, no one to argue with. That lasts for about 30 seconds. Then you realize that you don't know how to cook, or get a job, or the space isn't big enough. The question admits 'independently', so no mommy or daddy to come help you.

To rebut this, my opponent has to prove the following:

1. Teens, including the age of 13, can
Debate Round No. 2


Teens at the age of 13 can still receive financial help from the government (emancipation).Can get a taxi go to the grocery store and buy instant foods that can be cooked by using microwave and rent a small apartment.While staying at the apartment as they grow up they'll eventually reach the age of 16 and will be able to apply for jobs while still going to school.


My opponent's argument falls apart very quickly. I will make references to my opponent's argument, so I hope my opponent doesn't see this as an insinuation to ad hominem. I will further provide arguments, either within my rebuttles or indepedently. Because this topic is very legal, my opponent has to prove all three criterion I have provided, particularly:

"Studies, if any, done on teenagers living independently have shown overall positive results" (the other two are in the comments).

My opponent has failed to do so. Futhermore, there are no sources given as to the credibility of the argument. They are blank rebuttles, to be blunt.

"Teens at the age of 13 can still recieve financial help from the government"
I'm sorry, but this bad. Most states have the age of maturity at age 18. If the state has no specific emancipation age, it is up to the courts to be an arbiter of the case. The legal status comes from approval of a petition. A minor (age 13), a parent or a friend can be the petitioner. The motion states 'living indepdently', and thus, in fairness, parents cannot take part in this legal process. The petition then requires sufficient proof.

"Factors such as the child's age; the mental and physical welfare of the child; the ability of the parents to provide basic material support to the child in the form of food, shelter, clothing and medical care; and the mental and physical welfare of the parents all play an important role in establishing a child's best interest. The courts require petitioners submit substantial evidence of emancipation's necessity before deciding. . ."

This is from the same Cornell source provided earlier. The process essentially requires parental participation and physical maturity, both of which minors the age of 13 cannot attain. This automatically disqualifies the petition. Of course, there are circumstances where this does not apply, but we do not have to see the legal aspect to make the case. Any teen that feels annoyed or angry at their parents can file for a petition. In essence, a minority would be approved by the judicial process i.e. this is not possible. Also, the US is in a trillion dollar debt. If we have to financially help minors live indepdently, we would also have to make cuts. Cuts in education, business, etc. Allowing teens to live independently would stain the economy.

"Can get a taxi go to the grocery store and buy instant foods that can be cooked by using microwave and rent a small apartment."
All of which costs MONEY. The cost of living has dramatically rised over the last decade. As prices rise, it will inevitably require a raise or additional income. Again, no parental involvement. Taxi fares, everything else the same, no where less than $35-40. I agree with my opponent on this. They would be eating instant foods, heavy in sodium and sugars. This is a safety issue, because daily intake of said food will cause teens to fall ill. I'm absolutely sure my opponent has not rented a small apartment before. To rent an apartment you must be of legal age (18+) to sign a lease contract. Most cases allow a parent to be a cosigner, but again 'live independently". There is a big risk with letting a 13 year old live in an apartment, because there is no guarantee of a payment.

"as they grow up they'll eventually reach the age of 16 and will be able to apply for jobs while still going to school"

This is only valid if my opponent can disprove my arguments, but I will still address this. Teenagers, day 1, have to learn to cope with lonliness. Indeed, this can be psychologically demanding and can drive someone to even commit suicide. They will also have to learn soft skills aka money management, cleanliness, etc. My opponent insists that once they reach 16 they can get a job. Teenage unemployment is among the highest in the states. Even if they reach 16, there is no guarantee they will get a job. The firm's hiring is subject to diminishing returns. As the number of workers increase, their productivity only increases slightly. Their productivity has to exceeed what the firm is willing to pay, and that's the only way a firm will choose to hire that extra person. I believe I do not have to further prove why a teenager going to school and working is undesirable and demanding. At some point, they have to realize that the opportunity cost (what you give up to get something else) of going to school is too high. Thus, they will have to work full time.

I believe I have effectively rebuted all my opponents argument. Unless my opponent offers an equally stronger argument, there is no contention for futher debate.
Debate Round No. 3


rachepena201 forfeited this round.


I will extend the debate, in fairness.
Debate Round No. 4


rachepena201 forfeited this round.


Quite unfortunately, my opponent can no longer continue. I was hoping for a much enticing debate. While troubling, there is no doubt in my mind letting kids live independently from their parents is a horrible course of action. I believe have successfully and succinctly argued and refuted arguments.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rachepena201 1 year ago
I agree with you about the money and money management and this may sound cowardly of me but I have been busy and will continue to be busy so declare my opponent Jupiter1 the winner of this argument.That is all and thank you for taking on the argument.
Posted by Jupiter1 1 year ago
Sorry, here is the rest of the argument. The form did not go through correctly.

1. Teens, including the age of 13, are capable of living independently, without outside intervention
2. The current emancipation laws (laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents [1]) do not allow for circumstances of independence under "custody battles"
3. Studies, if any, done on teenagers living independently have shown overall positive results

I beg my opponent to present an organized argument. Having your parents go through with a divorce can be tormenting. But, to take a teenager from an otherwise stable, ample environment (even an unhealthy one) and put them into the real world is irrational and absurd.

1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits