Opposition

Parents should not be responsible with their childrens wrongdoings

because their growing up process is greatly influenced by their surroundings.
Contention I - Parents are not always the cause of a child's social behavior.
As my opponent admits in her opening arguments, a child's peers can heavily influence a a
child into doing something that, ordinarily, he/she would not do. This is what we call 'peer
pressure' [http://library.thinkquest.org...]. Being pressured by one's social group is a powerful
motivator for children, because, since they feel comfortable with the group, and believe that
they are among friends, children will be far more likely to engage in some activity at a friend's
request; furthermore, a child may also give in to peer pressure because they fear
abandonment by their peers if they do not go through with an action. Even if a parent tells a
child that stealing is wrong, a child's group of 'friends' could tell the child to steal a candy bar,
because it's "fun", or because the child will fit in better if he/she takes it
[http://kidshealth.org...]. When it comes down to it, the child has to personally weigh parental
teachings against social pressure; for those that give in to their peers, it's clear that the
parents did all that they could, but aren't to blame for the acts committed.
Contention II - Parents can't be perpetually accountable for their children.
It's a simple fact that parents cannot keep watch over their children 100% of the time, just
like the police cannot watch the actions of every citizen at all times. When a child goes out
with friends, for example, the parent can only trust the child not to engage in any socially
unacceptable behavior. Also, we can look at the government in this scenario. The government
makes laws, and puts children through school, to show them how to be good citizens, and how
to interact with others in civil society. This also places a lot of accountability on the
government, since school can account for approximately the 13 years of a child's life in which
he/she develops the most. The point I am making, though, is that, like the government, the
parents can only set a child in the right direction, and hope that he/she follows the path. "You
can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Contention III - Rebellion is a natural part of child development.
"As part of their development into young adults, humans must develop an identity
independent from their parents or family and a capacity for independent decision-making."
[http://en.wikipedia.org...] A child's parents can teach the child all the rights/wrongs of the
world, but ultimately, teenagers are bound to want to become their own person as their mind
develops and they become more autonomous. Often, as a part of rebellion, teenagers will do
the exact opposite of what their parents ask, as a way of asserting their independence.
Clearly, parents cannot be blamed for something that is simply a natural part of maturity and
development. In fact, the more that a parent intervenes during this stage, the more likely it
becomes that a child will act out in rash, irrational ways. As teenagers become increasingly
independent, they also become increasingly accountable for their actions, which prepares
them for adulthood, and life in general society. At some point, we must realize that parental
accountability has its limits, and even detriments, when it comes to child development.

Parents should be responsible of their childrens behaviour

Because they are the greatest influence that builds up their childrens personality

firstly Children Learn by there parents behaviour growing up, we learn to speak adaquetly or
inadaquetly by our parents,
although this can be influenced enviromentally The majority of People growing up learn Home
life before Society.
Peer pressure of course is a huge concern but as con stated it is only a motivator and that if a
child was fully secure at home , the child would be decisive about bieng involved in such
antics.
Research shows that children who have been Brought up in a stable home and family have
lead better lifes, this of course is a majority it might not stand for everyone.
- In addition to this research it also shows children who have had drug addict or socially inept
parents have either turned to there path or gone into a destructive measure of erratic
behaviour.
Parents these days sometimes seem to have a hard time finding a balance between work and
family. After long hours at work, many parents just don't have the energy to discipline their
kids, and they feel guilty for being gone a lot and tend to try to make up for it by being
permissive. This can be a problem, because the children learn quickly that if mom or dad is
tired they can get away with anything.
Other times, parents are too strict and controlling. They want the child to be perfect, they
have completely ridiculous expectations for their child that they can not ever live up to. This
often causes the child to feel discouraged and adopt a "why bother" type attitude of defeat.
When parents have a good balance in their homes and age appropriate expectations for their
children, their children usually feel accepted and safe and it shows in their behavior. Children
feel more secure when they have good boundaries in place and know what to expect. There
are consequences enforced for their actions, and they know ahead of time exactly what will
happen. They feel loved and supported, they know their parents care because their parents
are involved in their lives.
SOME STATISTICS<>
Children who have had strict Parents who are unsuggestive and deal with there upbringing in
a foul manner , Have usually turned to violence or drugs as a way of freedom.
Children who have had abandoment by there parents, 4/10 children have done this to there
own child as they can see and think this is acceptable.
Some children dont always see themselves in an " ideal " life but have the capability to be
strong and deal with situations, Con explains- "just like the police tries to control citizens all
the time Parents cant always control there kids"
Though this is true, Parents cant always be there for there kids and an amount of trust is
always good, but as a small child we learn to copy our parents we see hear sense things, a
strong trust bond with parents gives children a higher matturity level, but this sadly isnt
always the case.. A mother could say to his young boy " dont do drugs" Dont smoke- dont get
into trouble, but the mother dosent always understand a childs enviornment today , she
should speak to her child there should be a clear understandment on both sides.

Though a parent cant always be accountable for a teen/childs actions , it is always influenced
by home.
In many cases this has been true
for People who have destructed to murder, For example
Ted Bundy - His actions were dispicable, he was mentally enraged and sickened, but in a brief
interview he said He was always let down growing up by the women in his life , He also said
his mother never shown him respect or stability.. This growing up gave him a different view on
how he saw women, Nobody can say ted bundys Mother was to blame, but like i said it was an
influence.
Just like many of Convicts the majority have said they suffered with verbal and/or domestic
violence growin up at home.
Children of course need limits and detriments, But its important to give children heart to heart
discussions , so relate to a child and have a meaninful bond which can help the child learn its
rights in the world, so the Child can go into an indepenent Adulthood, Though its rare now a
days.
Children / Teens must find an inner voice to speak to there parents but often enough they are
scared, This causes mistrust. Some may say what if the child was bieng abused by a
teacher/caretaker etc, This is true but if children were brave enough and had good relations
with there parents they would feel comfortable telling them
-Also accounted by child psychologist Mary Hieffer.
Nature and nurture differs so much that it can be easily mishaped, But as early years nurture
directly correlates with the home, Like i said we spend the majority in home life growing up
than out in the social world, So nurture should easily overpower nature , Its only with the
childs mind and personality we see this.
In conclusion My arguement still stands, I do believe a childs behaviour is very influenced by
home life, what may suggest otherwise differs in peoples homes, But i do speak as a majority
and as ive researched various topics concerning this.