Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Rebut opposition stand (government)

Parents are blamed for petty crimes.

The _______ speaker of the opposition team claimed that parents are bothered by petty crimes
committed by their children. Crimes, no matter how petty are considered crimes. A spark
leads to a wildfire.
Illegally downloading music
Downloading files from the internet via file sharing websites is indeed a crime. Torrents and
file sharing is a form of theft; theft of intelligence that is punishable by the law under section
501 of the Copyright Law. Copyright infringement is an indictable crime as, if theft is not
tolerated by the law, surely theft of intelligence would be treated the same. If one were to
walk into a store and see a software program that he or she likes and proceeds to casually
take the program off its shelve and walk out, does the opposition team think that it is
allowed? In the same manner, if a child goes on a pirate site and downloads some software
without paying, is this right in the eyes of the opposition team?
Allow me to introduce the Broken Window theory proposed by social scientists James Wilson
and George Kelling. For example, consider a building a few broken windows. If the windows
are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they
may even break into the building. To summarize, this theory states that the little things do
matter. By tolerating a crime, dismissing it as a petty one will pave the way to greater crimes
in the future committed by the teenagers. A single spark is all it takes to get a fire going. By
claiming that parents should not be punished for petty crimes is allowing a cascading effect of
moral degradation in teenagers.
Adolescents are free from the punishment of their crimes.
The ________ speaker of the opposition team had argued that adolescents are free from the
punishment of their crimes. Adolescents are not free from the punishment of their crimes,
punishing parents ensures that teenagers; in fact are punished for their crimes. For instance,
if parents were not punished for the offence of their children, some parents would not bother
at all about their children as they are not affected. In other words, not being affected by their
childrens behaviour serves as an excuse to neglect their children and leave their upbringing
in the hands of law enforcers. By punishing parents for the misdeeds of their children
however, ensures that the parents remain engaged in the moral upbringing of their children.
Parental punishment relies on the correlation between parents and their child, and is aimed at
prompting parents to punish children on their own. Punishing parents acts as a negative
feedback for parents where the parents are supposed to regulate the behaviour of their
children to prevent further sentences to themselves in the future. How do they achieve this? by punishing their children, of course. By claiming that adolescents are free from the
punishment of their crimes shows that the opposition team fails to see the long term effect of
parental punishment and are adopting a narrow minded view of the motion.
To say that only a child is responsible for his or her crimes implies that they can be punished
directly by third parties. Yet who is to say that the punishment is just, fitting or appropriate? While
no parent is perfect, as a convention, we leave the discipline of the child to the parents, and then
hold the parents accountable for the child's behaviour.
The logic in punishing parents is that the family is in the best position to discipline and control
its members, so punishing the parents provides motivation to those who have the power to
prevent those crimes

Peer pressure is the main factors of social problems // crimes committed by peer
The _____ speaker of the opposition team had also claimed that there are other factors
involved in social problems amongst teenagers and thus, it is unfair to blame the parents.
According to childtrends.org, 87% of teen homicides are committed by teenagers who have
undergone family issues ranging from neglect to low levels of communication with their
parents. Furthermore, gleaned from a study conducted by Raymond Arthur, Weak
relationships between parents and children, poor child rearing skills, family discord, lack of
interest in childrens activities and ineffective supervision are all related to troublesome and
subsequent offending behaviour in teenagers. How can the opposition team claim that peer

pressure is to blame for teenagers who commit crimes? Parental neglect is the main factor of
crimes committed by teenagers, not peer pressure. Peer pressure can only convince a person
deviate from his or her morals if the person was not educated properly on the morals of life in
the first place. Who is responsible for educating the youngsters about morals? Parents.
Children should develop their own individual Responsibility earlier.
The _________ speaker of the opposition team had stated that children should be responsible for
their own actions. It is a parents job a parents responsibility - to teach their children the right
things as to avoid them from committing crimes. When criminal activity arises within the teenager,
it is considered to be a failure on behalf of the parents. Even when it is not a failure, it is still upon
the parents to rectify the situation through additional teaching.
Parents being considered responsible do not prevent children from developing their own individual
sense of responsibility. Rather, it is a recognition that this is a gradual process over which the
parent has authority and - with that authority - responsibility. Instead of interpreting parental
responsibility as being exclusive to childhood responsibility, it is more accurate to think of it as
being hierarchical. Society holds the parent responsible; the parent holds the child responsible.
Thus the child learns responsibility in a controlled environment, rather than being tossed to the
wolves of public scrutiny.
it can be argued that parental responsibility is necessary to teach childhood responsibility. Children
learn by example and the example that holds the most influence is that of their parents.
Regardless of what the parent teaches through words, if those lessons are not support by
examples, by the parent behaving in a consistent manner, then morals of those lessons won't take
hold. In order for the child to learn responsibility, the parent must behave responsibly.
Children usually have the attitude of Authority Aversion.
The _________ speaker of the opposition team had tried to justify his statement by claiming that
children usually have the attitude of aversion to authority. Aversion to authority doesn't absolve
the responsibility of that authority. Would my aversion to the authority of the police absolve them
of their responsibility to society as it regards my behaviour? No. If I break the law, they are
responsible, to society, to execute that law, whether or not I am averse to their authority. Likewise,
parents are responsible for their children's behaviour regardless of the child's aversion to authority.

Parents often fail to educate their children regardless of whether punishment is

dished out.
The existence of failures or flaws does not mean we should abandon the entire strategy. The point
of raising a child is to ensure that they can successfully integrate into society in an independent
fashion and continue to behave without direct supervision. The teaching of these lessons must
come from the parent, and they should be held accountable for the failings of those teachings. No
one can hold the high expectations that the process go completely smoothly or predictably or
without flaws.
**In order to remedy any social problems in a teenager which will eventually lead to crime, the
child must be taught from some source and, in so teaching the child, that source would be
responsible for the outcome of those lessons. However, the opposition team removes parents from
the equation and holds their children responsible for their own actions. Who should be held
responsible then? Third parties like society? If not the parent - who knows best - then whom?

Rebut government stand (opp)

Punishing parents serve as an incentive to engage in the disciplining of their child.
The _______ speaker of the government team had claimed that by punishing parents, it will
serve as an active incentive for the parents to engage in the disciplining of their child.
However, punishing parents also serve as incentive for parents to resort to child abuse. Allow
me to justify my rebuttal. While it would be nice to assume that parents would respond to the
stated incentives in a healthy and positive manner, it must be considered that it is just as
likely that some of these household parents would crack down violently; either emotionally or
physically on their children. Such actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle
in which the behaviour is constantly continued in future generations. It cannot be denied that
punishing parents will serve as an incentive. Nevertheless, the outcome of the incentive
provided is as fickle as human personalities. Punishing parents is no sure-fire way to prevent
crime committed by teenagers as many potholes are present along with this argument.

According to childhelp.com, a report of child abuse is reported every 10 seconds and more
than 4 die from child abuse every day. The government team might ask, where does the topic
on crime intersect with the statistics that I have provided? Allow me to clarify. About 46% of
abused children will later abuse their own children, continuing the horrible cycle of abuse.
Child abuse itself is a crime. By punishing parents, one does not solve social problems instead
causes more crimes to be committed in the future.
Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their child.
The _______ speaker of the government team had argued that parents are responsible for the
upbringing of their child. Whether or not they are responsible for the upbringing of their child
is out of the question. It is unjust of the government team to hold the parents responsible for
the wrongdoings of their child. We are debating about punishing parents for teenagers
crimes, emphasis on teenagers; in other words, a young person between the ages of 13-19 - a
young person who is fully aware of his or her actions being completely sane and a free-willed
individual. Blaming parents for the crimes committed by their children will not solve any
problems as children are left unscathed by the law. Even if the government team could argue
that penalising parents will cause them to punish their children in the laws stead, teenagers
still have the option of ignoring the minor rebukes of their parents. On the other hand, direct
punishment by the law itself will serve as an active reminder for the teenagers that they can
no longer use their parents as a shield but have to face the consequences of their actions.
Quote, Parents can only give good advice or put them on the right paths, but the final forming
of a persons character lies in their own hands, unquote; Anne Frank. We must reject the idea
that every time a law is broken, the parents are guilty instead of the lawbreaker. It is time to
restore the precept that each individual is accountable for his or her actions.
Adolescents will be more restrained in their behaviour.
The ________ speaker of the government team had claimed that by punishing parents,
adolescents will be more restrained in their behaviour. I pose, in my rebuttal to that, a
rhetorical question. If the teenager in question had been able to break through his or her
moral restraints and committed a crime, whats to justify the statement that the teenager
would stop just because the parents are being punished? It would be nice to hope that
punishing parents for their childs social problems would be an effective trump card in curbing
crimes caused by teenagers. However, in sad reality, once a teenager; an individual for that
matter, is able to commit a crime worthy enough of law enforcements to be taken would not
deter from the dark path that he or she has chosen just because they feel guilty that someone
else is punished in their stead. In a matter of fact, this will actually fuel the problems caused
by teenagers as they are no longer liable for their actions; their parents are.