Parents are to blame for the childrens behaviour

I'll just skip formalities, and head straight into Round 2. :) 1. Children learn through their parents. a. Children also learn through school (refer back to my government example in Ctn 2), through social interaction, and through experience. As stated in my case, parents can't always be held accountable for the behavior of their children. They can do their best job, but they can't protect their children from being influenced and motivated by outside factors, such as a group of friends. b. My opponent even concedes that children "can be influenced environmentally", and that "Peer pressure of course is a huge concern". Just as parental discipline or approval is a motivator for a child, so too is the acceptance of friends, or teachers, or general popularity among the school population. Pro has essentially handed me the round by conceding that parents are not solely accountable for the actions of a child, and that, outside of the home, parents can hardly enforce socially acceptable behavior. In fact, referring to my 3rd ctn reminds us that, in many cases, children will act out as a direct response to parental intervention as a means to assert their own independence. 2. Parental Imbalance a. While I can agree that many families seem to be imbalanced when it comes to work and family, Pro has yet to prove that this is always a direct cause of social dysfunction in children; as I revealed in Round 1, a child's peers, personal experiences, and social institutions are also responsible for shaping the child's behavior. I, for example, was raised in almost total poverty, lived in a house with a convict, and was dumped on my father's doorstep while my mom moved to Texas with the aforementioned convict, all when I was elementary-aged. So far as I can tell, I turned out alright. I certainly don't stand as a representative for everyone, but it's important to understand that parental background doesn't always account for antisocial behavior in children; correlation does not imply causation. b. While Pro often speaks of a 'good balance' between child autonomy and parental supervision, she never informs us of exactly where to draw the line. My questions to Pro are, where is this balance? How do parents find it? Are parents solely responsible for establishing boundaries in a child's life? To what extent should a parent be involved in a child's life? 3. "Statistics" a. I'd like to point out that, beyond tossing around a name here and there, my opponent cites none of the supposed evidence that she uses, which should lead us all to question its credibility. b. While my opponent states that, out of those who were abandoned as children, 4/10 would go on to do the same, we can flip that statistic, seeing that 6/10 have not. Clearly, her statistic is more fitting for the Con, since, for the majority, children who were abandoned did not follow the same pattern of their behavior that their parents followed, denying much of the causation that my opponent attempts to establish; even for the 4/10 that do follow the same pattern of behavior, my opponent has, as of yet, failed to establish that causality. c. My opponent concedes the point that parents can't always be around to watch their children, and that they must simply trust a child to act in an acceptable manner. By conceding this, the rest of her argument as moot, as we can both agree that, at the point that the parent must place trust in a child, the parent has transferred responsibility for action to the child him/herself. d. "As a small child we learn to copy our parents" - While humans may imitate the behavior of older humans at a young age, we must refer back to my 3rd ctn dealing with teenage rebellion, which proves that, even with adequate parental supervision, teenagers are inclined to act contrary to their parents' expectations as a means by which to assert personal independence, and perhaps gain the approval of their peers, as I noted in the previous contentions. e. "a parent cant always be accountable for a teens/childs actions" - resolution negated. f. "it is always influenced by home" - As I stated, it's also influenced by schooling, personal experience, and a child's peers; parents are never 100% accountable. 4. Examples a. http://en.wikipedia.org... b. Pro probably ought to admit the possibility of Ted Bundy using the "women in his life" as a scapegoat through which he could rationalize, and even justify his actions. c. "the majority [of convicts] have said they suffered with verbal and/or domestic violence... at home." - Refer to the above point; furthermore, Pro seems to be going off on a tangent on a child's needs growing up, rather than continuing her point on parental accountability for the actions of children. d. My opponent admits that a child's mistrust of parents is often caused by a child's fear to voice their opinions. If we accept this causality as truth, then the accountability rests with the child for not speaking up; if the parent is unaware of an issue, how can the issue be resolved? It's reminiscent of the fact that only 60% of rapes are reported [http://www.rainn.org...], whether due to embarrassment, shame, or fear of retribution - the same feelings could be shared by a child who is abused by a teacher or other caretaker. 5. Nature vs. Nurture a. "nurture directly correlates..." - Correlation does not imply causation [http://en.wikipedia.org...] b. "we spend the majority [of time] in home life..." - I'd like to establish that, with kids spending approximately 6-7 hours at school each day, and probably a few hours with friends (especially during the teenage years), and the remaining hours sleeping, I wouldn't say that the majority of time is spent with one's parents. c. "I do believe a child's behaviour is very influenced by home life" - this isn't the resolution; the topic states that parents are to blame for the behavior; not that they influence it some, not that the parents are the ones raising the child, but that the parents are ALWAYS accountable for their child's actions, even outside of a home setting. At the point that my opponent is taking steps away from the topic, the resolution is clearly negated. Also, I'd like to further establish that my opponent left my contentions basically untouched, especially my 3rd ctn dealing with teenage rebellion. With these arguments still standing strong, you now have 3 more reasons to negate. Good luck in Round 3, Pro.