Parents Are Responsible For Teens Delinquency

First, I find it 100% unfair for Pro to not define key terms, then change them as referenced in Con's R1 acceptance. Regardless, I will use these terms.Pro has offered three reasons why parents are at fault for teenagers' offensive behavior. Ignoring the fact that it is expected that teens revolt from parental control in these formidable years, these are the reasons for teen delinquency: family disintergration, violence, parental negligence, and exposure to violence.Since pro is making an absolute statement, this fault must lie in the parents in ALL cases.If the mother dies during child birth, then this is family disintergration, as is if the parents were to die in a car crash or were murderer. Is Pro really stating that if the parents are dead, that they are to be blamed for their child's upbringing?Further, if the parents are responsible enough to realize that they cannot provide a good life for their child and give it up for adoption, then this, too, is family disintegration and parental negligence, and is the cause of teen delinquency, according to Pro. Parental negligence is troubling, but when you have a teen taking care of the family, they are often not being deliquent. In fact, there are performing duties that are not even theirs. So, parental negligence can actually teach responsibility and have positive impacts.Unless Pro is stating that all teen delinquents are exposed to violence, this is unfounded and irrelevant. Further, this supposes that teens, if exposed to violence, will be deliquent themselves. This, too, is unfounded.Pro has offered no solid evidence or link that connects his assertions to the resolution. Just coincedental anecdotes, that while are likely factors, are not exclusive or causal reasons in themselves why teens are deliquent.These reasons ignore issues of mental instability, like neurosis and disorders. Can you really blame parents for a sociopath's actions?Further, this assumes that no act of offence or failure to perform a duty could be an accident, misunderstanding, or beyond the teen's control.I am sure there are plenty of teens who are delinquent and do not suffer from these three issues. And, as Pro has stated: I will explain few points amongst many,how parents are responsibe for teens delinquency.If they do not apply to the deliquent, they do not show responsibility.Further, responsibility is defined as: 1 : the quality or state of being responsible: asa : moral, legal, or mental accountabilityb : reliability, trustworthinessAre we going to say that not only is a teen, especially one of 18 or 19, not respoonsible for themselves, but we should hold the parents accountable, but we are saying that parents cannot make a mistake?I do not believe that a parent should go to jail becaue their 18 year old son got into a fight, nor should the parent be forced to pay for the 19 year old's cell phone bill.Pro has not met the burden of proof, and it is clear that to hold parents responsible for their adult children's actions is ridiculous. In fact, why stop at teen? Why not blame the 50 year old child for their parent's mistakes? Or, can we blame the mistakes of the parent's parents for their failures for the teen deliquent?http://www.merriam-webster.com...