Debate whether you think it is better for parents to be strict or lax in disciplining their children

First strict and then loose. Also, when educating children, parents must first set a good example, because children learn from others. Especially at the age of 11 or 12, it is a time of rebellion for children, and it is necessary to be strictly guarded...

After this period, you can be more relaxed, because the child grows up and wants to be independent, if you are in charge, the child will have no opinion. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the friends that children associate with in life, those who are close to Zhu are red, and those who are close to ink are black.

Loosen up a little and give your child a happy childhood.

I just heard it on TV: "The purpose of love in the world is to be together, with one exception, and that is the love for children, which is for separation from the beginning". Educating children is about teaching them how to do it, and then asking them to do it themselves.

Teaching should be strictly taught, and let them do it, and give them space to do it.

I don't know what is strict and what is loose.

Of course, it is the best for children.

1.There are no rules, there are no rules. Society has its rules. Strict parents let their children know how to do things under the rules from an early age, so that the education is more suitable for society.

2.Society is never about getting what you want. Strict parents teach their children from an early age that people should not be too greedy, and that they should have desires and dreams in moderation according to their actual abilities.

The children educated in this way will not be ambitious, and will be able to engage in various jobs in a down-to-earth manner, and will be more likely to succeed and return to society more practically. Not hungry friends will unrealistically ask for it, and then produce unbearable behavior and consequences.

3.Succeeding in society requires competence. Strict parents let their children know from an early age that they need to improve their personal qualities and learning abilities. Instead of blindly pampering children, let children be entertained all day long, and not study. This will make the boss sad.

According to our debate, I think that strict home education is definitely good for children, and most children spend their time in strict home education.

The other party's argument is that a relaxed environment cannot be better for children's education, and there will definitely be a loose and laissez-faire impact.

Don't you think that too loose family education will cause children to be laissez-faire and lawless?

If parents do not have self-discipline in their children, how can they reach their potential?

A child is like a small tree, if it is not repaired often, it will grow crookedly and grow branches. In the case that the child is not yet subjectively conscious, if he is not given a strict educational environment, is it to let the child grow freely?