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

teens should NOT stay with parents after 18 years old.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/9/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 892 times Debate No: 62948
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)




this is my first time so......


I feel privileged to be part of your first debate. The structure appears largely informal and since this is a normative question, we have a shared burden of proof. I'll just present my arguments here, and give you the opportunity to rebut them before you present yours as well. My position, of course, is that children should stay with their parents after 18 years of age.

A1: It allows children to get themselves financially stable

Children who leave their parents house immediately at 18 are immediately burdened with expenses. Personal, rent, utilities, etc. Furthermore, they face financial catastrophe if they cannot pay these. If children remain, however, it allows them to earn some money and gain ownership of certain essentials (e.g. a house, which appreciates in value over time) This ensures that they would not face homelessness, for example, in times of financial difficulty. In fact, a Forbes report has shown that over 10% of children who leave their homes at 18 in USA end up returning. Furthermore, it allows children to already set apart a portion of a (presumably) meagre salary for emergencies and investment purposes. This can give the children a sound financial foundation.

A2: It allows for children to mature a little more before settling down

It is optimistic to think that even most 18-year-olds are capable of understanding the world and their future, having just entered adulthood. For that reason, American universities don't even permit their students to pick specialised courses such as Law and Medicine as courses, because it limits options to one career path. Allowing children to stay home, while encouraging them to find out more about what they want to do, allows them to make better decisions as they move along.

A3: It keeps them close to their parents

It is certainly not necessary for everyone to move away from their parents' home at all. Many families, especially in Asia, live as extended families, with several generations living together. This improves familial ties, and ensures that parents are always there to offer advice to their children if they need it, and that children are there to care for their parents if they need it.

A4: College enrolment is higher in children who live with their parents

A Pew research report has reflected that 66% of college students are likely to be living at home. This can be attributed to the greater security it offers them. Allowing children to accumulate knowledge, credentials (in short, human capital) gives them much better prospects for their future, financial and otherwise.

For these reasons, I think it is clear that children should, in fact, live with their parents after they reach 18 years of age. I look forward to your counters and wish you a good first debate. :)

Sources (I recommend you use sources too!):
Debate Round No. 1


I think you have misunderstand something.......

your position should be children should not stay with their parents after 18 years of age.(because you are for)

and of cause my position is that children should stay with their parents after 18 years of age.

looks like you have gave me the information that I need........


Oh goodness I'm sorry! No matter, I will rebut my own points then (seeing as you have nothing to add). I will also add arguments for this side.

CA 1:

Although it provides the opportunity for 18-to-30-year-olds ("youths") to get themselves financially stable, it can be argued that this is unlikely to happen in practical terms. Youths are unlikely to be able to truly appreciate the magnitude of the responsibilities or difficulties that they will face in life unless they encounter them themselves. This means that while it may be useful to live near to parents, living with parents will deprive youths of the knowledge and appreciation of the challenges life has in store for them, and will put them at a disadvantage over those who understand these realities early. I can site several examples of people who have reached great success by taking charge of their lives early, like Steve Jobs, Johnny Depp, and Jim Carrey.

CA 2:

An attempt to gain financial stability can be a dangerous veneer for complacency and over-reliance on parents. The Pew report also notes that youths living with their parents have a significantly lower employment rate than their counterparts, as well as a lower rate of marriage. This implies that most youths living with their parents are not the kind that are mature enough to gain a thorough understanding of their circumstances and then leave. Marriage, to most people, is a milestone in life. A lower marriage rate suggests that less youths living with parents reach this milestone, at least at the same time as their counterparts. This implies slower and lower development.

CA 3:

It is unnecessary to live with parents to be close to them. One can live nearby as well, which will work just as well.

CA 4:

The increase is marginal, but I concede this point. I do not, however, think it is a major point. It merely points out that children who live on their own encounter greater difficulty. There is a saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". There are some that are unable to cope.

I shall provide an argument for this as well. Allowing youths to live with their parents makes it such that they are provided with everything they need. Obviously life does not work that way. Holding them back from the reality of life merely erodes their drive to fight for what they want. These bad habits will put them at a significant disadvantage over their counterparts, and in life.

I apologise to my adversary for misunderstanding the debate, and to the voters, because I fear that I've put them in a real conundrum, given that I've argued both sides and my adversary has argued neither (not his fault of course). I used the same sources as in my opening argument.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
thanks :)
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
What a debate! Republicofdhar absolutely stole the show and ran away with it. Excellent!
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
It's nice to see that I'm giving the voters a little laugh :) Thanks for voting!
Posted by Dheu 2 years ago
Well this debate is awkward.
Posted by Ghaby 2 years ago
It is entirely their opinion, some people have abandonment issues and they use their children as security so I think it is completely rational to want your children to stay with you if you both consent to this. It could also secure the teen's finance if he chose to stay. I don't see any reason why 18 year olds should move out, I mean the economy is tough, just saying.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
It's entirely the parents (and teenagers) decision. Some can simply not afford a place of their own at that age.
Posted by harrymate 2 years ago
Is first round acceptance?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Well that was a show
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Not only did you demonstrate superlative argumentation, but you added a flare of entertainment. Much appreciated, had a good laugh!
Vote Placed by morrisnj 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Used the most reliable sources, and most convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Agreed that this is a strange case... I have yet to see an individual argue the wrong side, then proceed to refute (quite successfully, I must say) all of his points. As stated by others, Con failed to produce any new arguments, and everything was refuted by Pro. Sources also go to Pro. Overall, even though things started out looking dim for Pro, he managed to refute everything he stated in round one and in turn won this debate.
Vote Placed by a_mysterious_stranger 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro listed sources, and made several points, especially with financial reasons. He conducted his arguments into parts, with a title, and an argument on why it is beneficial for teens to stay with their parents after the age of 18. Although he got mixed up, he even refuted his own arguments....even with financial stability.