CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
2
Yes. No.
Debate Score:10
Arguments:10
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (6)
 
 No. (1)

Debate Creator

Logically(191) pic



Required parenting classes?

Would society benefit from requiring expecting(new) parents, by law, to attend and pass a basic parenting class to become "certified" to raise their child? With the rise of school shootings and political polarity at dangerous highs, the purpose of these parenting classes would be to reduce the extremism from parents who raise their children improperly or at a sub-par level. Discuss any direct or implied consequences such as rights to reproduction, derivation of moral values, or bodily autonomy.

Yes.

Side Score: 8
VS.

No.

Side Score: 2
2 points

I feel like required parenting classes could be helpful to an extent. This class could be good in the early states of pregnancy or junior to senior years of high school. Seeing as 73% of teen births are at age 18-19. These parenting classes could also help educate people who may have friends who have a child and are not attending these classes. I don't see why we don't educate our teens about parenting more often. This is an important life skill that they will learn that was extremely help full as they progress through there life.

Side: Yes.
2 points

I think your idea is fantastic.

Look, we have to accept that a lot of indoctrination into foolish beliefs happens because parents don't raise their children to make up their own minds. The parents generally want the child to believe and behave what/how they themselves believe and behave.

The worst parents are the ones who see their children as some sort of property. They should be failed immediately.

Side: Yes.
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@Waylife

I (partially) agree with the points you made, although I still view 'required parenting classes' as potentially highly problematic. For one, what would the curriculum consist of? If it is at all analogous to the public k-12 system, then it would be a disaster--and, what evidence is there to suggest it would be anything other than such a model?

Side: Yes.

If parenting classes were required by law, or were required to graduate high school, than I believe the number of child abuse cases would see a significant decrease as students would see first-hand the effects, both on the children and the adult(s).

Side: Yes.
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
2 points

@themadgadfly

Not necessarily--how is Government run Health Education working out? Has it discouraged the young from sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, given proper information concerning human development & life-span in order to plan ones life accordingly, ect. ect.?

Side: Yes.
Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

The current Gov run Health Education system is a joke. I recall a two-week period of mandatory "sex ed" in 8th grade that nobody wanted to do so nobody put any effort into it, including the teachers. They just showed slideshows they were required to show and gave tests they were required to. The American Education system is very poor, very flawed, yet still gives birth to some of the greatest minds on Earth. The potential is there, the effort isn't. A step such as this could potentially fix that by giving parents information they need to raise children to be good, honest people; and not be focused around profits and budget cuts to education like our current officials believe should take place; Education should be one of our top spending categories by far; where in reality we spend over 5x as much on military than education. Fixing how we raise children will produce level-headed adults who can think clearer and realize what the worlds' needs are.

Side: Yes.
2 points

Bad parenting can come from ignorance, but it more often comes from apathy. And apathy can take many forms - walking out and leaving just a single parent or no parents, applying malice contrary to the golden rule, embracing an ideology at the expense of love and individual circumstances, or even simply telling kids who are hurting that they should just toughen up and get through it.

A class can fix ignorance. For example, with newborns, a class can teach how to hold a baby, feed it, swaddle it, etc. Because those are solutions for ignorance. But a class cannot fix apathy. It cannot make parents give a damn, or listen, or spend time with the kids, etc.

And what's worse is forcing all people to go to classes would dilute down and ruin the experience for all those other parents who volunteer to sign up to them because they want to do a good job. If the support group room of 10 new parent couples had to open up to an auditorium with 100 of them, and 90 are only there because they were required, then the 10 aren't going to even get a chance to learn what they came to learn.

Side: No.
1 point

And apathy can take many forms - walking out and leaving just a single parent or no parents...

Okay, so your argument is apathy, right? Apathy is defined by Merriam Webster as "lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern." If young couples have no actual interest in raising a child, why don't they just put the kid up for adoption?

By teaching kids how to be good parents, including putting up children they don't love for adoption, cases of bad parenting would decrease steadily.

Side: Yes.
Logically(191) Disputed
0 points

So you're saying some people just don't deserve to be parents, due to their lack (of)* apathy? If they had to attend mandatory classes AND pass them, do you think they would if they demonstrated this dangerous trait? A class isn't just about teaching the open-minded, it's about having the power to fail the closed-minded for the greater good.

Side: Yes.