Most disciplinary techniques or punishments are focused on instilling a sense of right and wrong in a child. Obviously, you cannot hope to curb unacceptable behavior by meting out a harsh punishment that is more likely to seem unreasonable and unacceptable to the child. Another aspect to parental punishments is the justification to oneself that, "my strict parents often used these punishments on me and that is why I turned out fine, therefore, this has to be the correct punishment". The authoritarian style of parenting is thus passed down through several generations across cultures. Not that there is a total lack of mutual love and respect between authoritarian parents and their children, but there's a strong possibility of the bond between parents and children falling apart in due course. Children who may have conceded in response to punishment temporarily, and appeared to have been "set right" by parents demanding obedience, find that adolescence and early adulthood bring back those memories triggering rebellious behavior or feelings of strong resentment against the "perpetrators".
I think it's child abuse because physically touching or beating it called as sexual harassment and can also mentally make the child feel hurt inside and coups possibly lead to severe depression disorder and make him or herself feel like life is not worth living
Certain actions involve natural consequences. If a child touches a hot burner, for example, they will get burned. When an action results in pain, we learn pretty quickly not to repeat it. That is common sense.
Example: Then there is an imposed consequence. If Johnny takes baby sister's toys, talk to him and/or give him "time out." He should not be beaten and screamed at for this behavior; he needs to be taught that following our own natural desires is not always the right thing to do. In fact, it is usually not. Imposed consequences help train children in self-discipline
Yes that's true to discipline them physical gestures should not be against them. and so as I said sexually harassing a child is incongruous and in today's day and age parents or stepparents or anybody for that matter is illegal to proceed in taking care of their child who have been harassed in any way and so lawyers would take those children and keep them in a safer environment to spend the rest of their lives in with others affected or new parents
The difference between child abuse and child discipline may seem obvious to most. However, to an inexperienced parent who isn't sure where to draw the line, there may be some confusion. Or to extremists on both sides of the child-rearing fence, there may seem to be no difference. Child discipline is - in a word - training. God has given parents a duty to train and teach their children appropriate behaviors and actions. In fact, we come into the world as little howling bundles of selfishness. Parents must invest their time, and yes - patience, in training their children, displaying lots of love and modeling exemplary behaviors for their children to mirror. Nobody said the job would be easy!
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side defined what 'child abuse' is, but im pretty sure what the pro thinks is considered 'child abuse' is far from the reality of what child abuse is. Child abuse ranges from breaking a kids arms with a baseball bat to not giving them food for days, and child abuse is far different then simple punishment for bad deeds. The con pointed out how child abuse (specifically sex) can drastically harm a child, and the pro couldnt refute that claim. Arguments to the con, but this debate could have been much much better
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.