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

Pro begins by stating that a lack of discipline amongst youth has reached crisis proportions. This is hard to contest, given the ever-increasing rates of crime amongst youth. What is possible to contest is the idea that mandatory parental training would be the correct solution. The reasons against this are as follows. 1) Economic sense. The financial cost to roll out such a programme would be obscene. (Far wiser to apply such a programme in schools, where the potential parents have at least some of the supplies for tutelage already funded.) In the economic climate we have, there simply are not the funds available as governments try to cut down on public spending. 2) Psychological factors. Many of the parents of badly behaved children were brought up to be similarly badly behaved. Specifically, there is a prevalent mindset within many criminal subcultures that crime is ‘cool’, i.e. of social value, bad behaviour is a badge of pride and, specifically, that governmental or other imposed authority is to be defied. Therefore, an externally applied training scheme would be likely to fail through innate resistance. (1) 3) Agenda difficulty. Organising a parental training scheme that could be agreed upon by a majority of people. Here at debate.org we constantly see the differing approaches and beliefs that permeate all levels of society. As a nice, simple contentious topic – would your proposed parental training encourage the smacking of children? Some parents – of well behaved children – believe that smacking a child is a fundamental part of a disciplined upbringing and failure to do so might encourage a criminal outlook in a child. Other parents – of well behaved children – believe that any violence against a child will in fact cause a criminal outlook. What authority or body can make such fundamental choices, and worse, what if they choose one that turns out to be in error? Which choices are permissible to impose on a parent, especially if they are in opposition to that parent’s personal beliefs (and the parent has been a productive, law-abiding citizen)? 4) Indoctrination risk. What if an authority that has a known background in abuse of human rights were to use such a programme as a tool for specific purposes of indoctrination? A fundamentalist state refuses to pass citizens as eligible for breeding unless they espouse the religion of the nation. Another may insist on atheism and refuse to pass parents who hold to ‘crass superstitions’. Even without such extremes, anyone passed to breed would be a cookie-cutter parent. One of the most important lessons to teach a child, as far as I’m concerned, is the value of different points of view. How could the value of independent decision-making processes, of different cultures and ways of life, be passed on through an insistence on mandatory lessons on discipline and behaviour? I hope that in this opening round I have made my points sufficiently that the necessity of negating Pro’s proposal is evident. A single refutation. Pro states that ‘many parents are far more younger’, however, the truth is the complete opposite is true (2). (1) http://www.ehow.com... (2) http://pewresearch.org...