The Instigator
Debatwinnerpro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should you SPANK your children?

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2017 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 845 times Debate No: 99694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Debatwinnerpro

Con

spanking is bad for your children
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Some kids are brats, and thewy just weren't spanked enough as kids. If we spank our kids more, maybe we wouldn't have as many serial killers.
Debate Round No. 1
Debatwinnerpro

Con

Spanking your children is a controversial punishment and has been scientifically proven to make your children more likely to be criminals. My opponent stated that if we spank are children more there will be less serial killers, however the apposite has been shown to be true. "Spanking destroys mental health." -psychology today Research on Spanking: It"s Bad For ALL Kids
also Emily Douglas, a sociologist and co-author of the research. says "There is a dose response, so that the more spanking one receives, the higher the risk is," "They were also more likely to have lower IQs because fear of corporal punishment is a chronic stressor that impairs learning, according to Straus." says globalnews.ca

My opponent has one of the worst arguments ever and is making a straw-man argument saying , "Some kids are brats, and thewy just weren't spanked enough as kids. If we spank our kids more, maybe we wouldn't have as many serial killers."

he did not state one fact or study proving what he says!
RonPaulConservative

Pro

You do know you have to post your sources right? For example, {1} children who were spanked up to the age of 6 did better in high school and were more likely to go to college, thus disproving my opponents claim that spanking lowers your IQ. It also turns out that places where spanking had been outlawed crime was higher, {2} thus disproving my opponents claim that spanking increases a persons likelyhood of committing a crime. Also, a strawman fallacy is when you refute a claim that your opponent never said, not- whatever it is you thought I did by stating that kids were less likely to be serial killers if they were spanked.

{1}. https://www.thenewamerican.com...
{2}. http://www.newsmax.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Debatwinnerpro

Con

#1 i would like to disprove one of my opponents arguments about him never saying spanking makes children less likely to be serial killers look at this direct quote from his first post, "Some kids are brats, and thewy just weren't spanked enough as kids. If we spank our kids more, maybe we wouldn't have as many serial killers."

#2 My opponent says that children are more likely to go to college and get better grades in high school if they are spanked, one 2009 study also said, "Exposing children to HCP (harsh corporal punishment) may have detrimental effects on trajectories of brain development," CNN which is a trust able new channel also stated that, "Researchers found children who were regularly spanked had less gray matter in certain areas of the prefrontal cortex that have been linked to depression, addiction and other mental health disorders, the study authors say." "The researchers also found "significant correlations" between the amount of gray matter in these brain regions and the children's performance on an IQ test. " CNN also stated

I have completely disproved my opponents argument about it improving high school grades and increasing the likelihood of children going to college. The only reason that spanking works for behavior right after the punishment is because the child's brain gos into alert mode so there behavior right after is not thoughtful, says handinhandparenting.org

http://www.cnn.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.handinhandparenting.org...

https://www.psychologytoday.com...
RonPaulConservative

Pro

CNN is not a trustable source, a perfect example of this is how they said that Steve Bannon is a white supremacist, {1} when in reality this is jusy hysterical propaganda. Donald Trump, the most credible source on planet earth, said that CNN is super dishonest and should never be truested. {2}

{1}. http://www.cnn.com...
{2}. http://www.independent.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 3
Debatwinnerpro

Con

Your argument back is that CNN is not a trust able source? i thought you would bring up some study or facts replying to my post! Also if you look closely that CNN article was just quoting Nancy Pelosi? so your argument is void.

P.S CNN is only not trust-able about political stuff(because they are democrats and they are biased towards democratic beliefs), not facts or studies!
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Irrelevant- CNN has a liberal bias and thus is going to say that spanking is bad. I revert to my arguments rounds 1 and 2.
1. Some kids are brats and just need to ket spanked.
2. The spanking of kids under 6 makes them do better in high school and more likely to go to college.
Debate Round No. 4
Debatwinnerpro

Con

OK if yoour going to say that listen to my TWO OTHER sources. Guys ronpaulconservative is trying to void everything im saying because he does not like CNN and he does not refer to my 5 Other sources
RonPaulConservative

Pro

See round 2, spanking makes kids do better in high school and more likely to go to college- also they deserve it because toddlers are BRATS. You know our 2 step sisters, don't tell me they don't need spankings.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by godofwolves 8 months ago
godofwolves
CNN is never a reliable source! most news outlets (CNN and FOX especially) suffer from heavy bias, granted they are great for entertainment
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JonHouser// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Both of you had deplorable conduct. Neither of you really gave clear, solid arguments about your case. Pro's conduct and sources were better than Con's.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter explains neither conduct nor sources. Merely restating the decision on both fronts is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Doom-Guy-666-1993// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (S&G), 6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited credible sites, he had one mistake that I could find.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct, S&G or arguments. Merely stating that Pro "had one mistake" that the voter "could find" doesn"t explain any of them. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side sited credible sources is not enough " the voter has to explain why they were more reliable than Con"s sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
Doom-Guy-1993
Yes he is.
Posted by Doom-Guy-666-1993 1 year ago
Doom-Guy-666-1993
If my child is being a little $h1t, he or she is gonna be in a world of pain.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: StatsAndFacts// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con had more reliable sources (yes, even CNN) and provided more convincing arguments and counterarguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Merely restating the decision is not an RFD. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter must be clear about what sources are more reliable and why they are more reliable. Merely asserting that they are is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Debatwinnerpro 1 year ago
Debatwinnerpro
lol no of course not thats my belief and i just wanted acceptance, and for my opponent to state what he believed, and then i sted facts lolol
Posted by Theguy1789 1 year ago
Theguy1789
Non-Aggression Principle
Posted by Doom-Guy-666-1993 1 year ago
Doom-Guy-666-1993
"Spanking is bad for children" is that really how you are going to debate this? a single sentence?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 1 year ago
DNehlsen
DebatwinnerproRonPaulConservativeTied
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: Awful debate full of faulty sources on both sides, grammar issues on both sides, and the most empty arguments for their claims I have seen in a while. Conduct on both sides was also sketchy at best.