Parents are to blame for the childrens behaviour

Con Thesis: While parents need to attempt to raise their child correctly, we must understand that they cannot work miracles, and that, at some point, whether at home, or out in society, a child is almost bound to act up at some point. With the children being minors, parents are often held accountable for the child's actions; though I agree that parents need to do their best to encourage good behavior in their children, I can't agree with Pro that, in any case in which a child 'acts out', the parent(s) are the direct cause of the event. 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. This concludes my opening arguments.