Debate Rounds (5)
I accept, present your case.
Punishment should not be given as physical assault is illegal and I do not believe teachers want to go to jail. Pro seems to give a number of guidelines to follow, but who will be there to monitor them? No one. Teachers are free to abuse it all they like. Maybe they had a bad day and decide to hit some kids. Who would be there to stop them? No one. How can we judge whether it's 'too violent'? We can't. It is also impossible to rationally deduct that physical punishment will directly lead to a child questioning all future decisions. Pro has given no reasoning or evidence for this.
I will now provide some psychological evidence that beating a child is bad for their development.
Physical punishments result in long term effects of depression, anxiety, substance abuse in later years, and a slew of other problems.
They result in a higher incidence of health issues in adult life such as cardiovascular disease.
Children who are hit are more likely to grow up to be aggressive.
It simply teachers children to avoid getting caught rather than attacking the heart of the issue - not doing it at all.
There is no evidence that physical punishment is beneficial.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a totalitarian world like that of 1984 where everything is monitored by cameras - there are no cameras in classrooms - even if there were, it would be in very few schools. Not every area of the school can be covered by cameras, the teacher can easily take a student to a place out of view and "punish" them. Contrary to popular belief, teachers to not have to be extremely qualified, especially in primary school and high school standards. As Pro has not provided any sources in his claims, I don't believe I need to, it's common knowledge basically. Furthermore, not everyone with academics can be 100% calm 100% of the time, to think so is just stupid. (Note: I am not calling my opponent stupid, I am simply saying anyone who thinks like that is stupid. Unless my opponent thinks like that.) Pro then uses his example of his father which is a fallacy of composition - just because it is true for a part does not mean it is true for the whole. I have clearly rebuffed all my opponent's weak arguments and he has provided no evidence for his claims.
simpleguy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is being excessively polite, thats very nice, conduct point to him. It is obvious simpleguy wins this, as his argument was backed with numerous studies while Bonpaclat only made a subjective claim, without any evidence, his opinion is without merit. Con was polite as well, so S&G to him in order for him to have an equal share of that politeness. I'm sorry if i'm stepping outside the boundaries of the voting system, but this is a very small debate.
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.