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

My opponent has refuted the proposed arguement for parental training on 4 stated points. That to impose a system of mandantory parental training makes no economic sense can be countered by stating what sense it makes to train our children towards academic acheivement (does that not require large economic injections?). Or what sense it makes in spending millions of dollars exploring space travel when there is really no benefits to be derived besides ascertaining the unknown (does that not require large economic injections?); or what sense it makes in spending millions of dollars in health related research when it takes many years to prove the worthiness of that research before it can be executed towards corrective purposes (does that nor require large economic injections?). Rolling out a system of mandatory parental training (to which I was not alluding) but for the sake of my 'for' arguement is a good way of ensuring parents are well equipped to provide the proper discipline and morals needed to build good societies. This should be a fundamental act of governance if we want the maintenance of healthy socieities to continue or prevail. My oppoent in point 2 Pyschological factors states that many parents of badly behaved children were brought up to be similarly badly behaved. This argument sounds more of a generalization rather than a specificity since it can be argued that many well brought up parents with morals and values have children whose behaviour is far nefarious and deviant than those so called similarly badly behaved parents. In most instances parents of these households are at a lost as to what are the contributing factors responsible for this and always ask where they have gone wrong. The arguement by my opponent has very little merit because in every family setting there will be good and bad children regardless of the proper and improper setting. Further to this, the prevalence of mindsets towards the acceptance of crime being cool as my opponent purports stems from the outside influences far beyond the parental circle. Such influences like the portrayal of music artist videos glorifying the gun or other disgusting acts associated with there specific music is to some extent responsible for this aberration away from acceptable norms. In large the society with such a mindset will not scoff at its offspring engaging in what is the acceptable norm of that society. Hence a sick society can only bring forth sickness where as a health society under parental training programme can only develop into healthy society. In my oppoonents two last points the third on agenda difficulty, it is my contention that such a scheme conducted at the many community base outlets with a high level of sensitisation may attract large numbers. The difficulty with such a scheme would be the response; since many of those targetted are already seasoned deviators and detractors; who will oppose rather than supporting. Inspite of that it is my belief that such a system should be implemented with full economic backing. In fact I would go as far as saying that it should be made law for those opposers. There should be a three tier approach specific to age bracketing starting from the primary/first grade level and onwards. With respect to my opponents proclamation about lashing a child. Let it be known that the training to which I allude speaks to the tenants of what constitutues a good parent and what does not. That means the correct way a child should be handled and treated and not necessarily schooling in the physical act of punishment. Discipline does not necessarily always have to entailed the act of hitting or touching the physical. The latter point Indoctrination risk has left me completly scatspraddle since I have no idea where my opponent is going with that