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

Should there be a mandatory period of training would be parents to combat the scourge of indisciplin

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 18687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




In many societies today, the scourge of indiscipline amongst the youth have reached crisis proportions. Much of the indiscipline associated with our young people is said to stem from the lack of parental mores and values that are necessary for the development of a good value system. Many parents are far more younger and exposed to a value system in our society that is no longer as strong as it should. It is on the basis of this argument that I believe that parental training is require to bring our society back from the brink of devastation.


Pro begins by stating that a lack of discipline amongst youth has reached crisis proportions. This is hard to contest, given the ever-increasing rates of crime amongst youth. What is possible to contest is the idea that mandatory parental training would be the correct solution. The reasons against this are as follows.

1) Economic sense. The financial cost to roll out such a programme would be obscene. (Far wiser to apply such a programme in schools, where the potential parents have at least some of the supplies for tutelage already funded.) In the economic climate we have, there simply are not the funds available as governments try to cut down on public spending.

2) Psychological factors. Many of the parents of badly behaved children were brought up to be similarly badly behaved. Specifically, there is a prevalent mindset within many criminal subcultures that crime is ‘cool’, i.e. of social value, bad behaviour is a badge of pride and, specifically, that governmental or other imposed authority is to be defied. Therefore, an externally applied training scheme would be likely to fail through innate resistance. (1)

3) Agenda difficulty. Organising a parental training scheme that could be agreed upon by a majority of people. Here at we constantly see the differing approaches and beliefs that permeate all levels of society. As a nice, simple contentious topic – would your proposed parental training encourage the smacking of children? Some parents – of well behaved children – believe that smacking a child is a fundamental part of a disciplined upbringing and failure to do so might encourage a criminal outlook in a child. Other parents – of well behaved children – believe that any violence against a child will in fact cause a criminal outlook. What authority or body can make such fundamental choices, and worse, what if they choose one that turns out to be in error? Which choices are permissible to impose on a parent, especially if they are in opposition to that parent’s personal beliefs (and the parent has been a productive, law-abiding citizen)?

4) Indoctrination risk. What if an authority that has a known background in abuse of human rights were to use such a programme as a tool for specific purposes of indoctrination? A fundamentalist state refuses to pass citizens as eligible for breeding unless they espouse the religion of the nation. Another may insist on atheism and refuse to pass parents who hold to ‘crass superstitions’. Even without such extremes, anyone passed to breed would be a cookie-cutter parent. One of the most important lessons to teach a child, as far as I’m concerned, is the value of different points of view. How could the value of independent decision-making processes, of different cultures and ways of life, be passed on through an insistence on mandatory lessons on discipline and behaviour?

I hope that in this opening round I have made my points sufficiently that the necessity of negating Pro’s proposal is evident. A single refutation. Pro states that ‘many parents are far more younger’, however, the truth is the complete opposite is true (2).



Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has refuted the proposed arguement for parental training on 4 stated points. That to impose a system of mandantory parental training makes no economic sense can be countered by stating what sense it makes to train our children towards academic acheivement (does that not require large economic injections?). Or what sense it makes in spending millions of dollars exploring space travel when there is really no benefits to be derived besides ascertaining the unknown (does that not require large economic injections?); or what sense it makes in spending millions of dollars in health related research when it takes many years to prove the worthiness of that research before it can be executed towards corrective purposes (does that nor require large economic injections?). Rolling out a system of mandatory parental training (to which I was not alluding) but for the sake of my 'for' arguement is a good way of ensuring parents are well equipped to provide the proper discipline and morals needed to build good societies. This should be a fundamental act of governance if we want the maintenance of healthy socieities to continue or prevail.

My oppoent in point 2 Pyschological factors states that many parents of badly behaved children were brought up to be similarly badly behaved. This argument sounds more of a generalization rather than a specificity since it can be argued that many well brought up parents with morals and values have children whose behaviour is far nefarious and deviant than those so called similarly badly behaved parents. In most instances parents of these households are at a lost as to what are the contributing factors responsible for this and always ask where they have gone wrong. The arguement by my opponent has very little merit because in every family setting there will be good and bad children regardless of the proper and improper setting. Further to this, the prevalence of mindsets towards the acceptance of crime being cool as my opponent purports stems from the outside influences far beyond the parental circle. Such influences like the portrayal of music artist videos glorifying the gun or other disgusting acts associated with there specific music is to some extent responsible for this aberration away from acceptable norms. In large the society with such a mindset will not scoff at its offspring engaging in what is the acceptable norm of that society. Hence a sick society can only bring forth sickness where as a health society under parental training programme can only develop into healthy society.

In my oppoonents two last points the third on agenda difficulty, it is my contention that such a scheme conducted at the many community base outlets with a high level of sensitisation may attract large numbers. The difficulty with such a scheme would be the response; since many of those targetted are already seasoned deviators and detractors; who will oppose rather than supporting. Inspite of that it is my belief that such a system should be implemented with full economic backing. In fact I would go as far as saying that it should be made law for those opposers. There should be a three tier approach specific to age bracketing starting from the primary/first grade level and onwards. With respect to my opponents proclamation about lashing a child. Let it be known that the training to which I allude speaks to the tenants of what constitutues a good parent and what does not. That means the correct way a child should be handled and treated and not necessarily schooling in the physical act of punishment. Discipline does not necessarily always have to entailed the act of hitting or touching the physical.

The latter point Indoctrination risk has left me completly scatspraddle since I have no idea where my opponent is going with that


I would like to thank my opponent for their swift response. Let us begin with a counter refutation. My opponent states that mandatory parental training makes as much economic sense as any social investment (for example, academic instruction of children, or space travel). However, my refutation to this is as follows; first, for every social programme that is initiated, another must of necessity recieve less funding; second, mandatory parental training is of itself a poor investment particularly in view of the fact that the majority of parents do raise law-abiding citizens.

My opponent claims in refuting point 2 that to state that 'parents of badly behaved children were brought up to be similarly badly behaved' is a generalisation and that law-abiding households with morals and values 'have children whose behaviour is far (more) nefarious and deviant'. Firstly, this is statistically incorrect (1). This study in particular shows that the children of law-abiding citizens have an 18.7% chance of committing a criminal act. Having a criminal father, this proportion raised to 48.5%, with a criminal mother 33% and with both parents being criminals, the total was a 67% incidence of criminal behaviour. And, as source (1) from the previous round already showed, criminals are more likely to resist imposed authority. My point still stands, then, that the parents of delinquent children, highly likely to be delinquent themselves, will resist such a scheme.

Further to this, my opponent has in fact made an argument for my case in claiming that some 'law-abiding parents are at a loss as to where they have gone wrong', and blaming outside influences such as the media. Well, yes. Parenting is not easy. Does my opponent consider that therefore the only way to create law-abiding citizens is to control and censor the media? Censorship is generally the tool of oppressive, dictatorial regimes (2). Moreover, the expensive scheme that 'trains' law-abiding parents that is being proposed runs the risk of failure, as does their own chosen parenting, through these 'outside influences'.

My opponent contradicts themselves in refuting point three, first by going back on themselves and discussing a scheme out of community outlets which 'may attract high numbers' (i.e. not mandatory) and then saying 'it should be made law for the opposers' (mandatory, then). So if you do not agree with this scheme, you will be forced into it. Despite the fact you are a law-abiding citizen, your freedom of choice over how you rear your child will be denied you? My opponent's response with regards to the smacking issue is so nebulous as to be an avoidance. This proposes scheme governs parenting and the discipline of a child. The 'correct way a child should be handled and treated' must of necessity address smacking. No, discipline does not have to involve smacking, but it often does. Some people believe in 'spare the rod, and spoil the child' and that failing to use corporal punishment in instruction is bad parenting. Others believe that the same idea causes delinquency. Where does this proposed scheme weigh in?

Finally, my opponent being confused by point four leaves me flabbergasted. I shall, however, restate my case. Iran, initiating it's own mandatory 'parenting scheme', declares that all citizens must pass it to be allowed to marry. It then proceeds to teach that 'right parenting' involves Shia Islam, ignoring the Sunni Islamists and other religious minorities who must forcibly convert to be allowed to breed. China institutes state atheism as a doctrine for good parenting and refuses to pass anyone for breeding rights should they express the slightest negative opinion against the state.

Unless of course the mandatory course has no criterion for passing, in which case it is an utterly pointless waste of money and most people will sit through it because they have to, then ignore it (especially those predisposed to raise criminal children). Even should this be the case, a mandatory course will still serve as a medium for governments to indoctrinate and control social values. My opponent still hasn't laid out the values, social mores and methods of disciplining that they believe necessary to constitute 'good parenting'.

With point 1 re-affirmed, point 2 actually supporting my case, point 3's refutation countered, and point four entirely neglected (and so far, then, conceded) by my opponent, I urge the reader to vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2


Lavisnic forfeited this round.


Through it being poor economic sense, through psychological factors related to resistance among those social groups this idea is primarily aimed at, through the inherent difficulties in setting an agenda for the teaching of 'right parenting' and through it's potential use an a means of indoctrination of social values, the idea of a mandatory parenting course has been shown to be unlikely to be effective. Since my opponent forfeited the previous round, I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 8 months 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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF