Should there be a mandatory period of training would be parents to combat the scourge of indisciplin

Let us begin with a counter refutation. My opponent states that mandatory parental training makes as much economic sense as any social investment (for example, academic instruction of children, or space travel). However, my refutation to this is as follows; first, for every social programme that is initiated, another must of necessity recieve less funding; second, mandatory parental training is of itself a poor investment particularly in view of the fact that the majority of parents do raise law-abiding citizens. My opponent claims in refuting point 2 that to state that 'parents of badly behaved children were brought up to be similarly badly behaved' is a generalisation and that law-abiding households with morals and values 'have children whose behaviour is far (more) nefarious and deviant'. Firstly, this is statistically incorrect (1). This study in particular shows that the children of law-abiding citizens have an 18.7% chance of committing a criminal act. Having a criminal father, this proportion raised to 48.5%, with a criminal mother 33% and with both parents being criminals, the total was a 67% incidence of criminal behaviour. And, as source (1) from the previous round already showed, criminals are more likely to resist imposed authority. My point still stands, then, that the parents of delinquent children, highly likely to be delinquent themselves, will resist such a scheme. Further to this, my opponent has in fact made an argument for my case in claiming that some 'law-abiding parents are at a loss as to where they have gone wrong', and blaming outside influences such as the media. Well, yes. Parenting is not easy. Does my opponent consider that therefore the only way to create law-abiding citizens is to control and censor the media? Censorship is generally the tool of oppressive, dictatorial regimes (2). Moreover, the expensive scheme that 'trains' law-abiding parents that is being proposed runs the risk of failure, as does their own chosen parenting, through these 'outside influences'. My opponent contradicts themselves in refuting point three, first by going back on themselves and discussing a scheme out of community outlets which 'may attract high numbers' (i. e. not mandatory) and then saying 'it should be made law for the opposers' (mandatory, then). So if you do not agree with this scheme, you will be forced into it. Despite the fact you are a law-abiding citizen, your freedom of choice over how you rear your child will be denied you? My opponent's response with regards to the smacking issue is so nebulous as to be an avoidance. This proposes scheme governs parenting and the discipline of a child. The 'correct way a child should be handled and treated' must of necessity address smacking. No, discipline does not have to involve smacking, but it often does. Some people believe in 'spare the rod, and spoil the child' and that failing to use corporal punishment in instruction is bad parenting. Others believe that the same idea causes delinquency. Where does this proposed scheme weigh in? Finally, my opponent being confused by point four leaves me flabbergasted. I shall, however, restate my case. Iran, initiating it's own mandatory 'parenting scheme', declares that all citizens must pass it to be allowed to marry. It then proceeds to teach that 'right parenting' involves Shia Islam, ignoring the Sunni Islamists and other religious minorities who must forcibly convert to be allowed to breed. China institutes state atheism as a doctrine for good parenting and refuses to pass anyone for breeding rights should they express the slightest negative opinion against the state. Unless of course the mandatory course has no criterion for passing, in which case it is an utterly pointless waste of money and most people will sit through it because they have to, then ignore it (especially those predisposed to raise criminal children). Even should this be the case, a mandatory course will still serve as a medium for governments to indoctrinate and control social values. My opponent still hasn't laid out the values, social mores and methods of disciplining that they believe necessary to constitute 'good parenting'. With point 1 re-affirmed, point 2 actually supporting my case, point 3's refutation countered, and point four entirely neglected (and so far, then, conceded) by my opponent, I urge the reader to vote Con. (1). http://www.theaustralian.com.au...;(2)http://www.cpj.org...;(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...;