Instigator / Pro
Points: 17

Tough upbringing is a good thing

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Freakazoid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Education
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 27
Description
By the tough upbringing I mean a strict and demanding attitude to a child's development, more often than not sacrificing her or his social and emotional well-being.
Round 1
Published:
Thesis

I support tough education because it will make a person happier.

Why is it true?

With the strict and demanding parents attitude to the development of children, the children are most likely to finish school with good results and develop skills which they can use later to improve the quality of their life. A good result and a set of necessary skills will allow them to apply to the most prestigious universities.

People that have not been brought up in a demanding family would have to apply to "second class" universities which would limit their life perspectives compared to those that grew up in the family focused on the kid's development. Therefore, the former will receive a better education and a degree from a prestigious university, which would allow them to get a good job and having a good job provides an excellent quality of life and respect among peers, among other things.

Result

Tough education fosters all the necessary benefits and the person becomes happier.


Published:
There is a good rule: when you are offered two chairs on some event which you have to attend, the best thing to do is to pick the third one.
My opponent suggested that there are only two choices, one either has a tough upbringing and gets successful or he or she doesn't and it ruins the one's life. That's exactly an example of that choice out of two chairs.

Upbringing is not a linear and straightforward process. This is a complicated "scheme", in which the decisive role belongs to both the goal that the parents set and the feedback from the child, not just a simple choice of methodology.

To begin with, it is necessary to decide what is the main goal of the relationship between the parents and the child? If the goal is to provide and take care of the parents when they get senile, it's one thing, if it's development of leadership skills of the child in the future, it's another thing and so on and so forth. And it is worth mentioning that a man, like any creature is not plastic, and one is initially genetically prone to have some abilities, which would be rational to develop and some weaknesses development of which must be avoided.



Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
cool
#3
Added:
--> @Club
yes, too bad it's an FF and both debaters haven't debated since
#2
Added:
is this the first debate on DART?
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No information
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No information
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con points out Pro's argument as a false dichotomy. Unfortunately, the debate did not advance much beyond that.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
No one had any source.
Pro had completely unsubstantiated claims and Con comes with come mumbo jumbo 'third chair out of two' analogy. The initial (and fundamental) BoP was on Pro. That's why Con gets the win. Neither proved their case at all with any facts backing it up.