The Instigator
DazG20
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Do you think it is right to smack your child as a discipline

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...
studentathletechristian8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,608 times Debate No: 12313
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

DazG20

Con

....In this debate I will be arguing the fact that it is not the right thing to do to smack your child when they have been misbehaving. I am arguing about the fact that this smacking may be taken too far by either parents of the child, and therefore none of them will stand against the child's rights upon not being smacked or harmed when needn't to be disciplined. If we think back to the Baby. P. incident then we are able to reflect on how much this smacking can do and whats happens if this is taken too far. I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sicks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident.

May I also add that we have now made ways around this how you can put your child into time out, which consists of time out for a child when misbehaving. So, why go back to the old way of smacking when we can clearliy deal without it.
studentathletechristian8

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate.

I do believe it is right to smack a child as a form of discipline. Resolution affirmed ;)

I'm just teasing. I shall refute my opponent's arguments.

"this smacking may be taken too far by either parents of the child, and therefore none of them will stand against the child's rights upon not being smacked or harmed when needn't to be disciplined."

MAY is the key word. You can't prove that it will be taken too far. It depends on the behavior and parental authority to determine when one has gone "too far." A child has a right not to be smacked or harmed when he doesn't need discipline? Who is to determine when the discipline takes place? You? You are not clear.

"If we think back to the Baby. P. incident then we are able to reflect on how much this smacking can do and whats happens if this is taken too far. "

One incident. One type of smacking that was taken too far. Can't negate the general resolution with one specific case.

"I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sicks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident."

A child's rights? Clarify. You have not done so. I would like to see some more evidence of children being injured by "smacking." There is a difference between hitting and smacking: hitting is a form of discipline that involves multiple beatings/hits delivered by the parent to the child while smacking is a form of discipline that involves a single hit delivered by the parent in order to teach the child the difference between right and wrong behavior. You are probably referring to hitting in this case, and hitting is not part of the resolution.

"May I also add that we have now made ways around this how you can put your child into time out, which consists of time out for a child when misbehaving. So, why go back to the old way of smacking when we can clearliy deal without it."

Time out? Do you have kids? Kids constantly run from the area where they have to serve the time out and exhibit even more bad behavior in the parental process of trying to teach the child to behave well. Smacking is much more direct, relatively quicker than time outs, more effective, and is more beneficial for enforcing good behavior.

I have refuted my opponent's arguments and intertwined some of my own. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
DazG20

Con

I thank my opponent for putting down their point in the argument.

I must say however that, no, I do not have children. I just think it is wrong to smack them when they need to be punished. We have evolved around that. And surely, it would only make the children violent by that I mean that it would make them think it right to hit other, when it clearly isn't.

I have noticed that my opponent has put something including the baby P incident.
'One type of smacking that was taken too far' I for started thought that there was only one type of smacking a child. Within reading through my opponents reply, I come across a quote;

"I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sticks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident." -Firstly, may I say that I however, agree with my opponent on the fact that the idea of smacking a child sticks to the children's rights, but I still however think that it is wrong. As I keep saying we have evolved around the law of no smacking of children, but does this include when your children are grown up? I however, continue with if we were allowed to smack our children then surely we would not need people for incidence Dr Tanya Byron, who is a children's psychologist, to help parents around problems like misbehaving, and how to be firm with them without smacking. And can I also say that smacking of whatever kind should not be allowed, so we DON'T have the same incident as of the Baby P.

I do refer to hitting being part of the resolution, I would love to know from my opponent what do they class as hitting. Surely, smacking is a form of hitting because if it is not then I would love to know what is?

Smacking, okay is a more direct way, and plus quicker, however, you are still harming the child is it not as if a parent would hit their child and not leave some sort of mark from the incident.

I would ask my opponent, when Baby P. incident was realized then of course that was too late. May I ask my opponent when can you tell if your child as been hit or smacked too much? Whether it being a form of discipline or not?

I have argued against my opponent on this matter I will be waiting for a reply :)
studentathletechristian8

Pro

"I just think it is wrong to smack them when they need to be punished. We have evolved around that."

Explain.

"And surely, it would only make the children violent by that I mean that it would make them think it right to hit other, when it clearly isn't."

Prove it. The smacking would make the children understand right from wrong. It would not necessarily make children more violent. Smacking does not encourage children to have violent outbursts; it encourages children to follow discipline and to learn what is correct behabior.

""I think the idea of introducing a plan to ban smacking children as a form of discipline clearly sticks to the children's rights and it also will prevent children from getting hurt, and repeating the baby P. incident." -Firstly, may I say that I however, agree with my opponent on the fact that the idea of smacking a child sticks to the children's rights, but I still however think that it is wrong. As I keep saying we have evolved around the law of no smacking of children, but does this include when your children are grown up? I however, continue with if we were allowed to smack our children then surely we would not need people for incidence Dr Tanya Byron, who is a children's psychologist, to help parents around problems like misbehaving, and how to be firm with them without smacking. And can I also say that smacking of whatever kind should not be allowed, so we DON'T have the same incident as of the Baby P."

My opponent believes that I have quoted the first statement that is in this response from his Round Two post. However, he himself quoted this, and I already refuted it. My opponent is quite confused. My opponent still has not discussed how we have "evolved around" smacking children, and why it is necessary for the debate. My opponent really doesn't argue anything; he merely states his opinion on the matter. Once again, Baby P. was one incident. You cannot affirm a general resolution with one specific instance.

"I do refer to hitting being part of the resolution, I would love to know from my opponent what do they class as hitting. Surely, smacking is a form of hitting because if it is not then I would love to know what is?"

Smacking is discussed in the resolution; not hitting. I have already defined "smacking" and "hitting" in my prior post. Apparently it is another part of my argument that my opponent did not read or comprehend.

"Smacking, okay is a more direct way, and plus quicker, however, you are still harming the child is it not as if a parent would hit their child and not leave some sort of mark from the incident."

My opponent really doesn't argue much here. Smacking usually never leaves a mark; marks result from hitting or paddling.

I have refuted my opponent's comments and argumentation. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
DazG20

Con

Ok. What I mean by 'I just think its wrong to smack them when they need to be punished. We have evolved around that' is that we have found different ways to punished children with out smacking them sorry for the confusion.

And the other quote "And surely, it would only make the children violent by that I mean that it would make them think it right to hit other, when it clearly isn't." what I mean by that is, they might think that they know they have annoyed someone because they are getting hit and surely this could teach them tht if someone annoys you, you have the right to hit them that's what I mean.

But then surely, if the children grow up and reflect on how they were brought up when they have children then they will hit them when they are being punished because that what they have learnt from their parent when they were children. And the idea of hitting could change and get worse as generations go on.

I will explain to my opponent what I mean by 'we have evolved around the smacking of children' what I mean is that we have changed our ways of parenting in which there is no need to hit children due to misbehavior, we have changed to punishing them with talking to them and also placing them in a more softer punishment for example; Time out.

I must say to my opponent, that we have way of parenting if you want a QUICKER way of punishment to the child just hit them, I can assure my opponent that a parent who wishes look after their child properly would put the time and effort into changing their ways including disciplines so using, as my opponent would refer to as being a slower punishment which would be time out, rather then a quicker discipline which involves hitting or smacking, which for whatever reason is causing harm to the child no mater what level it is on.

'Smacking never USUALLY leaves a mark'-I must ask my opponent what would the parent or child to if there was a mark then from the discipline? May I also ask the opponent for a definition of padding?

I thank my opponent for taking part in the debate.
studentathletechristian8

Pro

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DazG20 4 years ago
DazG20
Dear Studentathletechristian8,
No need to apologize. You still put you a good debate :)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 4 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I gravely apologize for missing the last round. My dog was attacked by another dog yesterday, and I spent hours at the vet's to get her fixed. Just got back from work.

I really am sorry.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 4 years ago
studentathletechristian8
DazG20studentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Valtarov 4 years ago
Valtarov
DazG20studentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by cjl 4 years ago
cjl
DazG20studentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70