Extremely strict parents are good for children.

First I will talk about goals and definitions, then problems with Con's argumentation, then about evidence for my position. In R1, pro set the two goals of the debate: academic success and later success in life. Thus I have to argue that strict parents contribute to their childrens' academic success and later success in life. Con's own argument concedes this for general definitions of success, and Con can only argue his position through adopting an idiosyncratic definition of success. Con agrees "Asian mothers do exemplify higher grades and academic success than the rest of the world" Con concedes the first half of the debate immediately, leaving only the question of later success in life. But then Con says, "When one has a happy life, one is proud in his past achievements and confident in conquering future goals. Tiger Mom, although she has fulfilled these guidelines, adds unnecessary stress and anxiety to her daughters' lives." Dictionary.com gives the relevant definitions of success as: 1. the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors. 2. the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. 3. a successful performance or achievement (1) By these definitions, Con's statement means that children of strict parents achieve successes, his only objection is that they are stressed and anxiety in doing so. However, nothing in the definition of success requires the achievements be stress and anxiety free to count as success. At this point Pro has won the debate, as Con own arguments met the success standards set for Pro. Now we look at problems with Con's arguments, largely the lack of evidence. Con's evidence that learning should be fun and strict emphasis on academic excellence is bad is solely that unnamed "many western parents" agreed with him. This is insufficient reason to accept his claim. Con uses the daughters of Amy Chua, the "tiger mom" referenced in the WSJ article, as the remainder his argument. He argues that neither of the daughters is famous nor rich. No evidence is provided for this, and even if it was, success doesn't mean fame and fortune, merely "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors"(1). Further, a sample size of two is not large enough to draw conclusions from and should be disregarded on that basis. Now I will add some additional evidence to support my case. My opponent has asked me to defend a parenting style similar in strictness to that promoted by ‘Tiger Mom" Amy Chua. However, in using the WSJ article as his source, Con (likely unintentionally) misrepresents both Chua's parenting and her reasons for telling these stories. In a later interview where she criticized the editing choices in the excerpt used by Con, Chua explains was writing a memoir of her discovery of the limits of strict parenting as she raised her children, not a how-to book. She advocates a middle of the road method between hyper-strict parenting and uninvolved parenting, and allowed her children more choices than implied by that excerpt (2). Her children did have play dates, did have sleepovers, and did have the moderating influence of a less strict father who made sure they had outings, like to waterparks. (3) Since the ‘tiger mom' target of Amy Chau is actually a style that attempts to balance strong limits and expectations with the needs of the child, I'm happy to defend this kind of authoritative parenting. From a white American perspective it may seem overly strict, but studies have shown that while African-American and Asian-American parenting styles may seem overly strict and restrictive to outsiders, the cultural expectations mean that the child still perceives parental warmth and love (4). As added bonuses, this style of parenting is associated with better diet and nutrition and less problem drinking. (6) Citation links in comments.