Underage minors should be mandated to attend parenting classes to have a right to parent.
Underage minor parents should be required by law to attend parenting classes to have a right to receive government benefits or to have parental rights.
I encourage all to oppose the resolution stated above as i do. I intend to prove the negitive effects of such a mandate are too great in quality of care and quantity than there are positive effects. Therefore this resolution must fail. Both goverment benefits and parental rights must prove to be more beneficial to reject until the minor can have parenting classes in order for this resolution to pass.
This debates terminology is self explanatory therefore I shall not provide definitions unless it becomes nessesary or semantics becomes a issue.
Failure to follow debate structure equals loss of conduct points.
Forfeit equals loss of convincing argument points.
This debate should be judged on a cost/benefit analysis.
round 1..intro/ acceptance
round 2..state cases/ no rebuttals in this round
round 3 rebuttals
round 4 summary and further rebuttals
round 5 conclusions and further rebuttals/ no new information
You obviously have more experience in debating than I do, but I’d like to take on this topic.
A persons right to parent should not be based on a class that cannot fully equip people to become good parent. It takes more than learning how to change diapers to become a parent. Though some minors do not have the resources or the maturity to take care of children some do. Some have the maturity to already have a job, homes, car etc. Some minors are good parents are capable of being good parents immediantly. Lets not forget that some teens grew up taking care of younger relatives. However we know by majority that minors don't have what it takes to become proper parents.So should we send all minors to parenting classes to ensure that these minors become proper parents? No, one reason is the fact that a parenting class cannot ensure that one becomes a proper parent. These classes only teach basic skills. They don't offer in depth counseling, or substance abuse treatment etc.. so that means that parenting classes cannot insure the product of a responsible parent. Usually the parents receive help from family members or friends or doctors who can teach them the very same basic skills. So why should we require these classes in order for someone to have the right to parent? The government has enough unnecessary mandates so. Why make more? Also where would the kids go since the parents don't have a right to parent and will therefore not have the right to watch their own children. This mandate creates unnecessary problems.
Unnecessary problems, stress, and grey areas.
Passing this mandate would mean the family couldn't receive food stamps, or any other public aid until both parents have taken these classes. What happens if the dad doesn't want parental rights and don't want to be a part of the child's life or has spite towards the mother? How would a mother get to ever have her child? What If she cant pay for the classes? If the child's still lives with their parents during this time those on public assistance will harm those very children their trying to protect because the government will cut the funds off. Is it worth it? Absolutely not. Bills wouldn't get paid and the babies. Will suffer dearly.
Resolved: Underage parents should be mandated to attend parenting classes to have a right to parent.
Though the resolution doesn’t take a stance on whether or not we’re debating about this issue in the instance where an underage person is already pregnant and is attempting to be allowed to keep the child or if this is the instance of a teenage love story of “we love each other and we’re getting married and having a baby”, I’ll be addressing the first for the sake of brevity.
To say that teen pregnancy was becoming a major issue would be a major understatement. Teenage pregnancy is becoming a sort of pandemic in the world today, (even “popular” enough to gain a TV series) and that has to bring up the question, why? The argument is often made that in ‘ye olden days’, girls were getting married and having children far younger than they do nowadays, so what’s the difference? The first is how family structures are made today. This day and age, many kids are lucky enough to not have to grow up being a parent to their siblings and most likely have no real understanding of what it actually means to be a parent. “Baby sitters” don’t often have to deal with colicky baby, and they don’t spend weeks waking up for bottle duty, they don’t learn extended discipline tactics, and dealing with the “I HATE YOU!!!” phase… They won’t react like parents, they will react like children because they are little more than children themselves.
Parenting classes will teach them the things they would’ve otherwise learned had they had time to fully grow up themselves and think about what kind of home they wanted to bring their baby into. Anybody can navigate the internet for information or go and buy parenting books, and there are good sources out there, but mandating a parenting class would ensure that the parent doesn’t get conflicting information that could endanger the baby’s life and/or development.
If you want children to be raised up into proper adults, they need to have proper, consistent adult influences. Now, does that imply that all adults are fit to be parents? Of course not, but this debate is only addressing the issue of underage parents, minors. One could complain that if they’re old enough to be parents, they’re old enough to make their own decisions, however they are still young enough for the law to decide things for them without their consent, but for their well being. Now, the government would be deciding things for the well being of a defenseless minor – the baby of an underage parent.
frozen_eclipse forfeited this round.
midnightJZ forfeited this round.
frozen_eclipse forfeited this round.
I forfeited round 3 in response to my opponent stating their forfeit was unintentional. However, considering the second forfeit, I'm just going to carry on with my rebuttal.
"A persons [sic] right to parent should not be based on a class that cannot fully equip people to become good parent."
We aren't talking about everyone. We're addressing the issue of minors becoming parents, people who've hardly lived long enough to know how to be adults let alone how to be parents.
"It takes more than learning how to change diapers to become a parent."
Precisely. There's a lot to being a parent that many people don't know about (and won't understand until they experience first hand), but parenting classes cover far more that just changing diapers.
"Some minors are good parents are capable of being good parents immediantly [sic]."
That's not a call you can make. Some minors may be professional divers. That doesn't mean they're ready to take a class down through the Great Barrier Reef. Being able to afford and take care of a house or a car is in no way synonymous to taking care of a baby.
"These classes only teach basic skills. They don't offer in depth counseling, or substance abuse treatment etc.. so that means that parenting classes cannot insure the product of a responsible parent."
These classes are purely hypothetical, we don't know what they could entail. And there really isn't anything to "insure the product of a responsible parent", because the definition of a good parent, a responsible parent is far too subjective.
"The government has enough unnecessary mandates so. [sic] Why make more?"
This sounds like the background issue is money. Sure, the government might have unnecessary mandates, but if it's costing too much, go back and try to make a change on the dead mandates that don't really apply anymore.
"Passing this mandate would mean the family couldn't receive food stamps, or any other public aid until both parents have taken these classes."
Nowhere in the resolution does it state that. You're making an assumption to try and boost your case, but really this stance is too wishy washy. This is an issue involving CPS. They wouldn't lose food stamps (which they might not be on), they'd lose their child. A much more severe, but if ask any parent what they would give up for their child, an hour class once a week (or whatever the terms of time may be) would be accepted easily.
To be honest, the last paragraph confused me a bit. However, in the instance of whether or not both parents would have to take the class and several "what ifs" around the scenario. Individual cases would be handled on an individual basis. I don't have an answer for every one of those questions because the resolution doesn't specify the terms.
Look at it this way: adult people have to have a license to have a dog. It really doesn't seem like asking too much for a minor to have to be allowed to raise a child...
even if I wrote a knock out rebuttal the voters are going to vote for my opponent regardless so I'm just going to give up the debate
Well, that being said, I've said everything I can say on this debate. Thank you.