Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal.

"So, you are saying that a parent can teach the child that hitting is not a punishment, BUT if you don't like what someone is doing with their items, they can steal." My Response: I am saying that hitting is to extreme as a punishment for a child. However, taking something away shows them that wrong behavior will result in the loss of something good. E.x. When I was about 4, I stole a toy train. My mom found out and she had me return it. As punishment I had to go through: A) Humiliation and B) when I got home I lost my TV privileges. Because of this I never stole again, since I knew that if I did I would lose something I like. This helps teaching kids for society. E.x. If you speed you will get a ticket and lose some hard earned money. "So if a parent holds a child, and uses force on the child, so that the child has difficulty moving for a few minutes, that is wrong, but the law of the US (and a sin in Christianity), of theft is not wrong at all, am I correct?" My Response: If a parent physical beats their child, then yes that is wrong. However, taking a toy away is not theft. Theft is defined as: larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully. The law allows a parent to punish a child, within limits, like no physical abuse. Essentially extend my contention 1 against your theft argument. The parent has a right to punish, and the toy is essentially under the parent's control. As long as the child is under the protection and under the roof of the parent, the toy belongs to the parent. "Yes but by using the word should, it also means that every person is equal, if a child buys soda with $2, that [s]he earned, the soda should be theirs. if the parent wants the soda, the parent should buy it from the store, or the child." My Response: The soda should be theirs. However the parent has a right to take it. I would assume that most parents would share the soda with the kids. Also, should the parent have a right to suspend food and shelter for the kid because it is their own money? Essentially by universalizing your action for the parent, then you justify the right to take away food and shelter. A family is a unit, essentially. They forfeit rights for each other. The kid is under the parents rule and is until of age (18), or unless the parents neglect the child/abuse him or her. The parents must protect and provide for the children. "CiRrO I would like to say this: The resolution says NOTHING about what rights the parent has with dangerous items. All the resolution says is with non-dangerous items, it does not deal with dangerous items at all." My Response: My argument is that the resolution is as follows "Parents should not take items their child/teen bought, that is not dangeorous/illegal." This implies that if an item is dangerous, then the parent should be able to take it away. All items are dangerous, therefore parents should have the right to take all items away. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) My opponent failed to refute my parent's rights argument. 2) My opponent has failed to refute me dangerous item argument 3) My opponent has not made a case of her own, and she is the affirmative. 4) By universalizing my opponents ideas about "theft", she has opened up the justification of parent neglect of the child. Essentially, the parent does not have to provide for the child since the parent has their own money. It doesn't have to be sued on he child. For these reasons I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.