The Instigator
nidaa1993
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dina95
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Disciplining Children

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,397 times Debate No: 22889
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

nidaa1993

Pro

In today's current day and society, many people have very diverse views and ideas about certain subjects. Some views on varying subjects are so diverse and opposite that it becomes almost a silent taboo where the subject is not even acknowledged or brought up. One of these subjects in this "taboo" category would be the idea of disciplining our children, and if we should discipline our children how do we do it the right way without society looking down upon us? Is it really abusive if a mother slaps a child for an out of line statement or action, or is it it too lenient for a parent to put a teenager in a "time-out" situation, leaving the child to sulk in their room till their hour is up. Are both methods just as effective when used to teach a child a lesson or is one much more effective than the other? Can certain methods of disciplining our children actually cause mental and emotional scarring in that in future years their development is lagged, or is all of the commotion caused over the subject merely propaganda as a means for someone to put their view across?
For many years and generations, people claim that when they were younger, in order to teach them a lesson, their parents would slap them or hit them, none of this abusive just a slap on the back or arm to teach a lesson; years later these same people claim that the only way to teach their own children a lesson would be to go about the same way of disciplining. While these people and many others may agree that these slaps and smacks are harmless and that they do get the message across to children, there are many out there that believe laying even a finger on any child is too much discipline and is too harsh. Some of these people even go as far as saying that to slap a child is child endangerment and child abuse, and should never be done. Yet when asked how they would discipline their own children if something was done out of line or disrespectfully, the question that comes to mind is : Is grounding a child really enough? Will my child actually understand what they did wrong if I take away something from them? For many, including myself, I believe that to simply ground a child or to take away a belonging will not always teach a child a lesson. Sometimes that light slap or scolding may actually be quite necessary for the child to see and understand exactly what is wrong with the situation that they were in or caused to occur. A question that then comes to mind is should a parent be put in jail or their children in child protective services if their disciplining methods did not merely consist of a grounding but also of slapping and spanking children.
dina95

Con

In my own opinion, I do agree with you that as parents we are obliged to discipline our children but I was not exactly sure what you were saying your stance was on the point of the argument. Now were you saying that you agree with the point that we should discipline our children? This I agree with. Were you stating that disciplining our children must consist of more than just a grounding and that we should take slapping and smacking into the picture? With this statement I do believe that sometimes a grounding of a child may not be enough for the child to learn a lesson but to what extent would you say that slapping and smacking is necessary for a child? I do understand spanking for children but to repeatedly smack a teenager or someone who is actually old enough to understand the situation that they are in may be too much. Maybe a smack for back talking every now and again is necessary, but if this is constant and is used in excess, I then believe that this would be a form of child abuse and that the parent themselves should get in trouble with the law. Not exactly sure where you wanted to go with this argument, but if I had a little bit more clarification I'm sure it would be easier to see what you were trying to say.
Debate Round No. 1
nidaa1993

Pro

To clarify what I was trying to say earlier, I guess what I wanted my real debate topic to be was if it was necessary to discipline our children, which is an obvious yes. And if so, how much discipline would be too much discipline. I see what you were saying that to smack a teenager may be too much rather than smacking a child, but I do not see how that could be. If anything I would say smacking a teenager would be much more acceptable than smacking a child because a teenager actually has the ability to see their mistakes and teenagers actually have the ability to control themselves and their own actions. With a child, on the other hand, they are still learning the differences between what's right and what's wrong and to hit a child that is clueless may not be sending the right message across. Though yes they do get hit because they did something wrong, does not necessarily meant that they will learn their lesson, especially if they are too young to even understand what they had been doing wrong in the first place. Another question that I wanted to cover was how much discipline would be too much discipline? When is it that parent's cross the line. I have heard of parents putting hot sauce in their child's mouth for cursing, but is that enough to put a parent into prison or to take that child out of the care of their mother or putting that child into the care of child protective services? I do believe that physical discipline is necessary to a degree, but I do not believe that the parent should be put into prison for putting hot sauce into a child's mouth. On the other hand, I do believe the mother Jessica Beagley, the woman who was found guilty of child abuse of her adopted son, had gone too far to put the boy into cold showers and to make him drink hot sauce. I do understand that she saw this as a way to teach him a lesson, but to make a seven year old boy drink hot sauce for lying is too much. If a child lies the mother or father should actually speak to them of why lying is wrong and what lying can do, this is when I believe that it is necessary for the child to have a grounding, this though would not be a good reason for a parent to lay a hand on a child would be too much for a situation such as this. I believe if disciplining a child is taken too far it may result in trauma for the child and this may take a toll when growing up and developing mentally and emotionally. If a child is continuously disciplined in a certain manner on various occasions for simple and minute things, this may result in the child having problems connecting with their family in the future and possibly even relationship problems with their future spouses and children, all of this being traced back to the disciplining methods of when they were much younger.
dina95

Con

Okay, thank you for clarifying where you were trying to go with this subject, for a moment I was confused on what to debate about because I did agree that disciplining children is completely necessary and that for many situations grounding a child is simply just not enough. I'd like to bring up the point of what you were saying about the "abusive" mother Jessica Beagley; if i remember correctly this was the mother that was put on the Dr. Phil show because she was having difficulty or something with disciplining her own child. From the video tape she brought in, it showed her feeding her young child hot sauce and forcing him into cold showers. Once seeing this and all of the commotion that it stirred I could not do anything but laugh. I find it absolutely ridiculous as to why some people would actually call this an example of child abuse. How is this child abuse, especially if the child is not getting any physical harm in any way? What is a cold shower going to do to you? Burn you? Same with the hot sauce, the only thing that any of this does is cause pain and none of this leaves any markings or bruising of any kind. To teach her son that lying was bad she fed him hot sauce, I do not see what the big deal is here, who cares if the child was fed hot sauce, especially since we've all had hot sauce before and the pain is temporary. How is this at all necessary for jail time, America's problem is not paying attention to the real criminals in the world and wasting time focusing on mothers that know how to discipline children.
Debate Round No. 2
nidaa1993

Pro

You never answered of whether or not you feel that this sort of discipline causes mental and emotional trauma for the child in the future, and from what it seems your argument for the mother answers that question. What I find ridiculous is how you actually side with this monster that you call a mother. Of course the physical pain that the child felt is temporary, all physical pain is temporary, but the means that the mother went about as to how to teach her child a lesson was completely unnecessary. This was a seven year old boy who told his mother a lie, a seven year old! First of all, how bad can a lie be if you are only seven years old, and secondly it is understandable to discipline a child who has done something wrong that you have repeatedly said is wrong, but to discipline to that extent with hot sauce, and then have the hot sauce followed up by a cold shower is too much for a lie. It is obvious that we all agree that children that were once abused do carry emotional trauma with them far into their adult lives but where do we as a society draw the line between abuse and discipline? According to child-abuse-effects.com there is actually a list as to distinguish the difference between what is considered child abuse and child discipline. The list states that some things that are considered child abuse consist of demonstrating anger and hostility, making the child listen, teach child that decisions are at the whim of the caregiver, caregiver has all the power; child is given no respect, involves humiliation, and requires submission. The things listed as displaying discipline consist of demonstrates love and affection, teach child right from wrong, teach child to make healthy choices for him/herself and prepare child for eventual independence, based on a balance of power and mutual respect, does not involve humiliation, and does not require submission.
Now you may ask what exactly is the point that I am trying to make by posting a list of the differences between child abuse and discipline, what I am trying to show is that what that mother showed on the Dr. Phil show of what she was doing to her son fell completely within the abusive column. That woman made it her duty to make sure that the child knew that she had all of the power and that all the rules that were made were meant to be followed, she did not in any way show that she had any respect for the child for she made sure he was submissive by punishing him with punishments too harsh for a seven year old. How is any child, especially an adopted one, not going to end up with any emotional trauma after continuously experiencing things like this. Not only does the child probably already have some emotional and mental problems for being put into the adoption system, but now he probably has problems that directly are results of the "discipline" that his mother placed upon him.
dina95

Con

I have no idea what you are saying of how any of that could be child abuse especially if the mother was simply trying to teach the kid a lesson. the kid should know by now that lying is wrong and should not be done, so the mother took it inot her own hands as to how she wanted to teach the kid a lesson. I still do not see that as child abuse, and i highly doubt that the child will have any amount of emotional trauma after experiencing something like this. When I was younger my parents disciplined me through spankings and stuff and I do not have any emotional trauma whatsoever. Even though i see that you said that the kid was adopted, so yeah he probably already has some issues, but I do not think that any of these issues were enhanced because of a cold shower. How can one even call that abuse? The kid did not end up with any sort of bruises or scarring, and he had to learn his lesson some way. To simply tell a kid what they did wrong and not to do it again is not solving anything you actually have to show them and let them feel what they did so that they actually learn their lesson and do not go about doing anything in the same manner ever again
Debate Round No. 3
nidaa1993

Pro

Wow, this is amazing, I think I can honestly say that I have never spoken to, met, or even debated against someone so close minded in my entire life. I find it absolutely ridiculous as to how you say that the only time anything can be considered child abuse is if there are actual marks that are left over to show what had happened. To clear things up, in order for anything to be considered abusive it does not have to leave marks. Ever hear of verbal abuse? Can you tell me one time when a word actually left a mark on your skin, highly doubtful. Are you kidding me, of course an experience like this added to the load of this child's emotional trauma. Initially the child was placed in a state of mind that he was unloved and that nobody wanted him, and then after experiencing continuous moments such as this where a mother is constantly giving him freezing showers because of a small act of stupidity, the child is in for some serious emotional trauma. Are you going to tell me that none of those moments that your parents spanked you or yelled at you are no longer remembered and no longer pass through your thoughts? I still can remember stupid situations in which my parents lightly scolded me when I was much younger and they still stand out in my mind. You continuously go on and on about how you do not see how any of these acts that the mother created could be child abuse and yet I even listed the differences between discipline and abuse, and it is quite clear that a few of the facts listed under abusive is what that woman falls under after what she did to her child. In the video found at: http://abcnews.go.com... clearly shows that the mother is putting herself in complete control, she is showing and making it known that the child is to be completely submissive, she does not seem to be showing any love, especially where it can be seen that she throws the little boy naked into a freezing shower, and of course the little boy does not seem to even have the chance to learn a lesson of any sort for he is too busy worrying of how bad this punishment is going to hurt because he lied, something that all of us do especially when we are kids. Not only can this be seen as abusive, but what kind of lie could be so horrible that this little boy told that caused this mother to give such a harsh punishment. I did say initially that sometimes a spanking may be necessary for a child to learn a lesson but not a spanking in which the parent leaves marks or the child is crying of excessive pain, just enough to get the message across, nothing to cause damage to a child already recovering from the adoption process.
dina95

Con

Before you claim that i said that none of this caused emotional trauma, I did not say taht ,i said that what the mother was doing did not cause any additional trauma, how would it anyways the child was not hurt he was learning a lesson. Of course I remember the different times my parents hit me and yelled at me, that does not make it abuse, it just shows that what they thought of as discipline was working because the message got across and I never made the same mistakes twice. Not only is it funny how everyone is considering what the mother did as abusive, but its hilarious and ridiculous as to how she was about to face criminal charges. Are you telling me that i could go to jail for teaching my children a lesson? I saw the list that you pointed out and I read what you were saying, but no where on that list does it say that hitting or spanking a child is considered abusive, it said allowing the child to be completely submissive with lack of respect as abusive. From what i saw on the tape, the mother was not forcing submissiveness on the child nor was there any indication that the child was not given the respect as the mother had. Emotional trauma or not, what i saw i do not consider abuse at all.
Debate Round No. 4
nidaa1993

Pro

I cannot believe that I had actually just wasted all five rounds of this debate trying to talk to someone who had no supporting evidence to their own view. Whether or not hitting is on the list, what the mother did to the child was too much and all of that was definitely abusive. What do you mean she did not force submissiveness upon the child? Of course she did, if you do not see half of the time the little boy cannot even look the woman in the face out of fear, and of course there is a lack of respect, half of the time the lady is yelling at the boy as she forces him to drink hot sauce and then following this up with throwing him in the shower. What kind of lesson is little boy supposed to learn through this method? If anything this little boy is going to be traumatized and forced to believe that all American families are like this and this is how they teach children lessons, and this is totally inaccurate. If she wanted to teach the little boy a lesson she could have had a talk with him and explained to him exactly what went wrong and what he did wrong, she did not have to start off with yelling at the kid. How can you say that he will not end up with any scarring the little boy is only seven years old, he barely knows the difference between right from wrong and this is the time that we should teach them and not punish them. Additionally, you telling me that you remember when your parents yelled and hit you does not mean that you actually learned the lesson that your parents were trying to teach you, it just shows that that specific moment in time was SCARRING enough to you that you remembered it. Call me wrong, but would that not be considered emotional trauma, I'm sure that half the time that you remember the different times that your parents yelled or hit you you do not remember exactly what you did wrong all of those times. All that shows is that you did not actually learn any sort of lesson but that you do remember all of the times that they yelled at you because they scared you enough to remind you that you did not want to see that side of them again. Do you not think that the same thing applies to the little boy. Do you really think that in ten years from now that little boy is going to remember that the reason why his mother threw him in the shower was because he lied? No, of course not, the only thing that little boy is going to remember is that this woman forced him to drink hot sauce and threw him in a freezing bath because he had done something she did not like. With this in mind, the little boy will grow up learning no lesson, he will remember that he was punished and will not know why.
dina95

Con

Okay, this was certainly not a waste of time in mind, this child was not abused and he probably deserved what he got. You don't follow the rules you get punished, end of story. This boy had a lesson to learn, and the mother taught him. You can say all you want that i am traumatized just like the kid but i beg to disagree, though i do not remember all of the reasons why i was punished i do know for a fact that i stayed out of trouble as a kid, even if it was because i was afraid of my parents, the methods worked and i refused to make the same mistakes again.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
As a member of the Paragraph Propagation Patrol, I refuse to vote on principle.
Posted by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
The topic of the debate is unclear, what exactly are you trying to affirm as the Pro?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote brought to you by the DDO'ians Against Multi-Accounting Alliance (DDOAMAA) whose goal is to warn others to not vote for any side in a debate on the grounds that both sides are controlled by the same person
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I have sex with Katz
Vote Placed by Sans_the_Ander 4 years ago
Sans_the_Ander
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote brought to you by the DDO'ians Against Multi-Accounting Alliance (DDOAMAA) whose goal is to warn others to not vote for any side in a debate on the grounds that both sides are controlled by the same person
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Multi accounts, can tell by the name. IT'S NOT LEGAl TO HAVE TWO ACCOUNTS HERE GUYS.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I hope this staggering amount of stupidity is confined to one person...
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote brought to you by the DDO'ians Against Multi-Accounting Alliance (DDOAMAA) whose goal is to warn others to not vote for any side in a debate on the grounds that both sides are controlled by the same person
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
nidaa1993dina95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote brought to you by the DDO'ians Against Multi-Accounting Alliance (DDOAMAA) whose goal is to warn others to not vote for any side in a debate on the grounds that both sides are controlled by the same person