The Instigator
Skynet
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
WheezySquash8
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Corporal punishment on children by thier parents.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
WheezySquash8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,094 times Debate No: 55121
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Skynet

Pro

WheezySquash8 voted in my poll that I should debate this topic. The poll's not over yet, so jump in if you want. There won't necessarily be 1 winner.

http://www.debate.org...

I am taking the position that corporal punishment is an effective and non-detrimental way of disciplining children, by their parents, as long as the reason for discipline is correct, punishment is proportionate, and no permanent physical harm is done. (Spanking with hand or switch, etc.)

If the challenged does not wish to accept, this will turn open.
WheezySquash8

Con

I accept! Best of luck Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
Skynet

Pro

Parents should use corporal punishment on their children because children start off life with almost no knowledge as to what is good for them. They have instincts to be fed and physically comfortable, and demand attention. These are all good and ensure survival. But once the child reaches an age when they can act on their own, they retain the drive to get what they want to be comfortable, but lack discernment between what appears to be beneficial, and what actually is. For instance, tactile discovery is essential for development, but grabbing wires or a hot surface, or a wasp, or the cat's tail, or sticking of the fingers into electrical sockets, or eating a cigarette butt may be harmful beyond what should be allowed in trial-and-error exploration. If the child just wants to lick a bar of soap as an experiment, that might be considered tolerable because they would likely quickly refuse to do so in the future with no serious physical side effects. For those things that would result in serious injury, a slap on the hand is a good substitute for electrocution or a wasp sting. The same point gets across to the child, (doing that results in pain) but the physical harm is not permanent.

The same thing applies to older children, but more often for behavioral reasons than to avoid physical harm. A slap on the bottom after stealing from another kid on the playground should instill psychological disincentive toward stealing now, rather than trying to retrain an adult who robs a house who never got the lesson. Or worse, the untrained, selfish adult steals and gets into a lethal altercation during a robbery, or is incarcerated for a long time.
WheezySquash8

Con

Corporal Punishment (Con)

Introduction



For hundreds of years, parents having been using numerous punishments on their children. In many case, these punishments are either cruel, or inhumane. One of the most common examples that many people think of when they think of cruel punishment in modern society is corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is still be used today in certain countries while in others it is not. Corporal punishment by society is bad because of its effect on both the child and the parents.



Reason 1 Mentality


Although many may regard corporal punishment on a child as a good thing for the kid, it turns out that there are more negative effects on the child rather than pro, and many of this cons that come with it involves mentality. In a mental sense, the child can be mentally impacted by people inflicting corporal punishment on their youth. First, children who are victims of corporal punishment become more violent. Violence between parents and their kids is the leading cause of violence in women, and young black men. Corporal punishment has also been proven to cause anti-socialness, and increases the chance of suicide in the child. When a child is victimized by violence from their family, they tend to take it as an example, and later are more likely to do it. The child also tends to mentally become dehumanized and/or depressed from it which is likely to increase the chances of social isolation, and suicide. A survey of about 3,900 people to see what corporal punishment can cause showed that 76% percent of the people who were experienced the corporal punishment had been negatively affected. Many who experience corporal punishment are likely also to experience mental disabilities in their later life. Does this not have a coorelation?


Reaction To Pro



"Parents should use corporal punishment on their children because children start off life with almost no knowledge as to what is good for them."



When Pro said this, he did not realize something. If kids do not know what is good for them, shouldn't they not be punished? If they do not know what is good for them, they will still experience the affects of corporal punishment in their later life. Kids would even be more vulnerable to experiencing negative effects if they have no knowledge of what is good for them. They could take it the wrong way.



"But once a child reaches an age when they can act on their own, they retain the drive to get what they want to be comfortable, but lack discernment between what appears to be beneficial, and what actually is. "


It is true that discipline is important for a child to know is beneficial, and what is not, but why use violence to get a child to get them to learn that? There are many forms of punishment that have no violence whatsoever that could still have the same effect. Parents, for example could use allowance. Allowance gives children money to spend, and later learn how to use it (solves what is beneficial, and what is not issue). Allowance is also a great thing for parents because they can take the allowance away from their children if they do something wrong. Dave Ramsey an author, writer, and radio host shows a perfect example in saying, "My children were taught at an early age how money works and that it comes from hard work. They've been on a commission - not an allowance - since they were little. They learned that if they worked around the house, they got paid. If they didn't work, they didn't get paid."

"The same point gets across to the child, (doing that results in pain) but the physical harm is not permanent."

This statement is highly false. Physical harm is permanent. Physical harm has the following effects.

* Changings in the child's nuerotransmitters that assist in modulating pain, mood, and sleep.

* The body's pain relieving abilities reduces drastically, making physical punishment worse, and worse each time.
* Increasing sensitivity to pain due to tissue injuries.

* Disruptions on every day activities. (Less Motivation)

* Anxiety, and depression.

* Stress.

* Increases in anger, and agitation.

Therefore, your statement that physical harm is permanent is false. Most if not all of these affects last permanent, or long periods of time. Not to the extent of dehumanization, but rather mental, and physical disruption.

"A slap on the bottom after stealing from another kid on the playground should instill psychological disincentive toward stealing now, rather than trying to retrain an adult who robs a house who never got the lesson."

This directly coorelates with the affects of corporal punishment. Studies have shown that the most common cause of crime is psychological disruption. Corporal punishment causes psychological disruption, therefore when you say that it would reduce stealing, it is false. The kid would have a higher chance of stealing due to the mental effects of corporal punishment.

Sources

(Healy, Michelle, "Study links physical punishment to later mental disorders,"USATODAY.COM. USAToday, 7 July 2012, Web, 24 May 2014)


("Causes of Crime - Explaining Crime, Physical Abnormalities, Psychological Disorders, Social And Economic Factors, Broken Windows, Income And Education.", JRank)


("Dave Ramsey quote," BrainyQuote, BrainyQuotes, n.d, Web, 24 May, 2014, <>)

("Is Corporal Punishment an Effective Means of Discipline?," APA, n.d, Web, 24 May 2014. <>)


(Palozzi, Lori, "Consequences of Pain" , AbourKidsHealth, 22 Sept. 2009, Web, 24 May 2014, <>)


("Disciplining Your Child", KidsHealth)






























Debate Round No. 2
Skynet

Pro

Skynet forfeited this round.
WheezySquash8

Con

Pro has forfeited. If he posts an argument, I will respond to it.


;

;
Debate Round No. 3
Skynet

Pro

Apologies for the FF.

Responses to Con:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the difference between appropriate corporal punishment and physical abuse demonstrated by some critics of corporal punishment. I'd liken it to confusing eating desert, and gluttony. Both are eating, and both can be gluttony, but eating desert is not always gluttonous. This is pointed out well in the JRank article Con cited. The article is Causes of Crime. Under the heading "Parental Relations," abuse is discussed, but nowhere is corporal punishment mentioned. The assumption on Con's part is that they are one and the same. Abuse is meant to harm. And even if corporal punishment is harmful and abusive, it has been commonly used for hundreds of years in many cultures by parents who are intending the best for their children. The appropriate corporal punishment is not meant to harm, but to discipline. That is the big difference.

It seems to be modern journalistic practice to splash a headline, lead in with evidence supporting that headline, then near the end of the article, (when many people have stopped reading?) temper the stated point with evidence to the contrary (So the author can say they included everything?) (Maybe. Topic for another discussion.)

In the USA Today article, this is just the case. The first few lines strongly support the headline, but near the middle of the article, we see this:

"A 2005 scientific review he co-authored, of studies comparing spanking with non-physical discipline methods, identified an "optimal type of physical discipline," referred to as conditional spanking, and said that when it was used as a backup to nonphysical discipline it was better at reducing noncompliance and antisocial behavior.

While the new study rules out the most severe cases of physically lashing out at children, , "it does nothing to move beyond correlations to figure out what is actually causing the mental health problems," says Larzelere. He criticized the study's reliance on memories of events from years earlier, and says it's not clear when punishment occurred. "The motivation that the child perceives and when and how and why the parent uses (spanking) makes a big difference. All of that is more important than whether it was used or not."

The end result may often be a misled reader.

Another misunderstanding I'd like to point out from the Dave Ramsey quotes: There is no mention of financial discipline (or other types) being used as a total replacement for corporal discipline. Just because he is using one type, does not mean he isn't using others. And just because a parent uses corporal punishment, doesn't mean they ONLY use corporal punishment. I grew up being spanked, but that wasn't the only punishment. Sometimes my parents just let me live with the consequences of my actions, sometimes they denied me TV, sent me to bed early, or plainly let me know they were disappointed in me. Corporal punishent may be appropriate, but like everything, knowing when and how to use it is important to making it appropriate.

The Consequences of Pain article doesn't even touch corporal punishment, only chronic physical pain. If CHRONIC pain results from a spanking, your doing it wrong, and it is abuse or a very bad accident. Spanking, etc., is supposed to be temporary to encourage the child to correct behavior, not spank them and expect them to do it again.

And Disciplining Your Child doesn't really cite reasons for advising against physical discipline.

When I talked about children not knowing what is good for them beyond instinct, I tried to be clear that physical discipline is only appropriate once the child can act on their own and understand reasons for discipline. Maybe I didn't do such a good job in R2 in that respect.

My arguments:

I guess I'm still going to have to clean up some misunderstandings here, too. Physical discipline needs to be administered in a proper way. As the USA Today article said, it needs to be alongside other forms of discipline, the parent should not be angry when administering it so the child does not think they are being assaulted out of anger, or that it is a fight with the parent, and so the parent doesn't go too far, and so the child knows it is usually wrong to act out of angery aggression. The child needs to understand what they are being punished for and why, (understand the actions are just and so the kid understands what right and wrong is) and that the parent cares for them and is disciplining them for their own good. (To preserve the relationship. Good advice for any type of discipline.)

Corporal punishment is not a cure-all, and not to be used in anger just because the parent doesn't like the child. That wouldn't teach the kid anything, just to fight.

Corporal punishment is a good tool for loving parents to use, when used appropriately.
WheezySquash8

Con

Reason 2 Physical Effects

Saint Augustine, a famous Catholic saint once said, "The greatest evil is physical pain." This evil known as physical pain is commonly an effect of corporal punishment, and it is another reason why corporal punishment is wrong. There are numerous effects of the pain Corporal Punishment causes on kids. Studies have shown that kids who are victims of physical pain often feel less energetic. This impacts their school, activities, etc. Physical pain can cause kids to become too tired to do their work in/out of school which can tamper with grades, social performance, etc. The pain also causes kids to often become mentally impacted (see argument one). Pain had also shown to impact sleep. In numerous cases, kids have pain while sleeping physically which reduced the kid's sleep, impacting their devolopment. The studies have also shown that this physical pain also affects their relationships with their parents. After being inflicted with pain, kids often do not trust their parents as much because their minds are developing, and they're not capable of realizing their parents' intent (see reaction 2). This can cause kids to isolate themselves (coorelates with mental pain), or view their parents in a wrong way.


Reaction To Pro


"This is pointed out well in the JRank article Con cited. The article is
Causes of Crime. Under the heading "Parental Relations," abuse is discussed, but nowhere is corporal punishment mentioned."


The reason that I used this article is because Corporal Punishment is abuse. The dictionary (check my sources) says that abuse means to treat in a harmful way, and as you saw by my second argument, Corporal Punishment is exactly that. Harm is caused by Corporal Punishment no matter how harsh, mentally, or physically as you saw in my arguments.


"And even if corporal punishment is harmful and abusive, it has been commonly used for hundreds of years in many cultures by parents who are intending the best for their children."


Evem if these things are intended for the "best", they can still affect the child. Studies have shown that kids while growing up take in things from their surroundings, and it commonly determines who they become. They also have things called Sensitive Periods, occassional times while the kid is growing up in which that the child is vulnerable to being impacted mentally. The growing mind does not always realize if these punishments are meant for good, and commonly are impacted by it. They also during puberty commonly have mood swings which can potentially make them become more vulnerable to being affected by Corporal Punishment.


"Corporal punishent may be appropriate, but like everything, knowing when and how to use it is important to making it appropriate."


Even if a parents uses the appropriate measures for corporal punishment, the child (as stated) can potentially be affected due to his/her mind devoloping.


"The Consequences of Pain article doesn't even touch corporal punishment, only chronic physical pain. If CHRONIC pain results from a spanking, your doing it wrong, and it is abuse or a very bad accident."


Pro took this too literally. Chronic pain is a long-lasting feeling of discomfort. Yes, physically the pain does not last forever, but mentally, and socially it does. Depression, and emotional pain are some examples of chornic pain. Although the pain from corporal punishment does not last long, the effects of it can. This is exactly why I have been talking about the effects of this.


"And Disciplining Your Child doesn't really cite reasons for advising against physical discipline."


I know that. I cited that because I used that to show the other methods of discipline that could be used besides corporal punishment. I mentioned other methods of punishment that could impact the kids less in argument one so I cited it. It was meant to show that there are other methods besided physical punishment.


I am happy that Pro looked at what I used, but I think he took them the wrong way.


"The appropriate corporal punishment is not meant to harm, but to discipline. That is the big difference."


Yes it is intended that way, but as stated, the children often take it the wrong way and later get the effects I have been stating.


"Another misunderstanding I'd like to point out from the Dave Ramsey quotes: There is no mention of financial discipline (or other types) being used as a total replacement for corporal discipline. Just because he is using one type, does not mean he isn't using others. And just because a parent uses corporal punishment, doesn't mean they ONLY use corporal punishment."


To start, this quote does show financial discipline. It is an example of kids losing their allowance if they did not do what they were supposed to do which is a harmless, effective, and proactive way of punishing a child that does not impact the kid, and still teaches a less. Secondly, why does it matter if it did not mention it replacing corporal punishment? I already gave statements on why it should replace Corporal Punishment. There are numerous things that could replace corporal punishment, and that could have the same positive effects, and none of the negative effects so there is no reason why corporal punishment should not be replaced.


Sources


("St.Augustine of Hippo", Catholic Online)

("Definition of Chronic Pain", MedicineNet, 9/20/12)

(Donohue Shortridge, Peter, "The Absorbant Mind and the Sensitive Periods", ShortridgeFoundation)


("Abuse", DictionaryOnline)


Conclusion

After numerous rounds of debate, we both have not came to a conclusion here, but we have proven both sides. It is up to the individual themselves to decide what is right, and what is wrong in this. Pro, it was fun debating with you. Corporal Punishment is wrong because of it's effects on both the child, and others.




































Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Skynet 2 years ago
Skynet
Good debate. Though I refuted my opponent's sources, I didn't put enough time and energy into defending my position.
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
Skynet
Oops, sorry Con. Family life got in the way. I have thoroughly researched your R2, and will continue the debate if you wish, or we can start over. You can use this against my conduct or excuse it as you see fit.
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
Skynet
I will not respond quickly so you have more time.
Posted by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
I'll accept your challenge once I have time this week. I should have time to post an argument before the deadline.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 2 years ago
Beverlee
SkynetWheezySquash8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Con made a good case that corporal punishment isn't necessary. Pro seemed to say that it is a good option, but conceded that it could be risky (parental anger, too severe hitting, etc.) So I give arguments to Con - why support a risky option when other choices are available? Conduct for the FF.
Vote Placed by travis18352 2 years ago
travis18352
SkynetWheezySquash8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfitted.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
SkynetWheezySquash8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate, you don?t see tons of them on here. I thought Con won on the arguments, he showed how corporal punishment hurts more then it helps whereas Pro couldn?t show a direct correlation from the productivity of the child in later years to corporal punishments. Sources go to pro as he proved that Con?s sources were inadequate and misused. Conduct goes to Pro due to Con?s misrepresentation of sources.