The Instigator
Dennybug
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Spanking/Smacking children is more beneficial than harmful.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,878 times Debate No: 49722
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Dennybug

Pro

-First round is for acceptance and stating your side-

-Second round is for adding arguments-

-Third round is for refuting arguments and adding more-

-Fourth round is to add any last arguments and refute-

-Fifth round is for last rebbutals and conclusion paragraph-


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am pro. I will be arguing that spanking/smacking children FOR disciplinary reasons is more beneficial to them than it is harmful.

If you need clarifications please post your questions in the comments.

If you know you dont have time for this and will forfeit, Don't accept the debate.
Defro

Con

I accept.
Before we proceed to the debate, I must clarify a few things, begining with the defining of terms.

Spank (v): to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks. [1]

Smack (v): to strike sharply, especially with the open hand or a flat object. [2]

Is (v): to be. [3]

Beneficial (adj): conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful [4]

Harmful (adj): causing or capable of causing harm; injurious: a harmful idea; a harmful habit. [5]




Pro's resolution: "Spanking/smacking children FOR disciplinary reasons is more beneficial to them than it is harmful."

*The term "is" is absolute and unchanging. Therefore, due to the nature of the word "is", Pro is implying and suggesting that smacking children for disciplinary reasons is ALWAYS more beneficial to them than it is harmful.

*Therefore, my job in this debate is to argue that it is either equally beneficial than it is harmful or that it is less beneficial to them than it is harmful.



Sources:

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
5. http://dictionary.reference.com...



Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Dennybug

Pro

Thank you Con, I appreciate your use of semantics to try and win over the debate.


Cons resolution: it is either equally beneficial than it is harmful or that it is less beneficial to them than it is harmful.

So hence con's usage of the word is, he will have to argue that it is ALWAYS equally harmful, Or is ALWAYS more harmful.

According to Con and his usage of the word is, Smacking/Spanking children is NEVER more beneficial, So by presenting an argument in which one case of spanking a child was more beneficial. I have successfully countered Con's resolution.

====================================================================================


Argument #1 - Children learn behavioral correction like dogs.





They both chew on things, they both Sh!t in the house, they both squeak, they're both cute.

How do we discipline our animals I ask you? We do so by smacking/spanking them and telling them off for what they have done wrong in a deep scary voice. Then we give them a smoochie and tell them it's okay.



Doesn't this damage the child though you might ask? No not at all. Let me show you the outcome of the children/dogs who get this specific form of discipline.








================================================================

Argument #2 - The Bible Tells us to hit our children


The holy bible of our lord god, Jesus christ the savior of all. Tells us the following in Provers 13:24

Whoever spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.



The bible also states that those who follow it go to heaven.

I'll ask you something now, what looks more beneficial?





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conclusion - Because I have used mans best friend(Dog) and the word of the absolute god(Bible) as two foundations for my argument. It is clear to see that yes. It is always more beneficial to spank your children.



Good luck Con, although you don't stand a chance.
Defro

Con

Yes, I will be arguing that smacking/spanking children is ALWAYS either equally beneficial, or less beneficial. I intend to have a serious debate, whereas so far you seem to be trolling.

========================================================================================

Rebuttal:


"Children learn behavioral correction like dogs."

-Pro has compared humans with dogs. To make such a claim that children learn behavioral correction like dogs, one must provide reliable sources and evidence that backs up his or her claim. Yet the only evidence Pro has to support his claim is that "They both chew on things, they both Sh!t in the house, they both squeak, they're both cute." I would like to point out that the age of children range between 1 to 13 years old, therefore this statement does not apply to all children. A 10 year old no longer squeaks and uses the toilet properly. Furthermore, to conclude that children learn like dogs based on this statement is crude and absurd, and I will explain why next.


"They both chew on things, they both Sh!t in the house, they both squeak, they're both cute."

-All animals with teeth chew on things. All animals that eat things excrete waste from their buttocks, and if they were in a house, they would excrete waste nevertheless. Mice, squirrels, birds, they all squeak. And they're cute too. Pro is saying that dogs and children learn similarly because they chew on things, excrete waste from their buttocks, and make noises. By using this logic, Pro is implying that this is the same for most all animals as well, which of obviously not true. Many animals are aggressive and will retaliate if spanked. Other animals do not have advanced enough brains to comprehend and adapt to the discipline.


"How do we discipline our animals I ask you? We do so by smacking/spanking them..."

-That is not true, there are several pet owners who don't spank their animals for discipline. And if their pets are snakes or spiders, spanking them will have no use because unlike dogs, they don't realize that they are being spanked because they've done something wrong. This is because their brains are less advanced. I realize that I must provide sources, but I am restricted by the time I have left, so if requested, I shall provide sources for these claims in the next round. But for now, you must trust that I know what I'm talking about because I am an AP Biology student and organisms' reactions to stimuli was the first thing I learned in the course.


"Doesn't this damage the child though you might ask? No not at all. Let me show you the outcome of the children/dogs who get this specific form of discipline."




-First of all, Pro has not proven that the dog and the child in those pictures have undergone discipline that contained spanking. Second of all, those photos show nothing. For all we know, the dog and the child has been severely emotionally/mentally damaged, which would not appear on a photo.


"The Bible Tells us to hit our children"

-The Bible is an unreliable source for this topic due to the fact that it is biased and that it's words can be interpreted by anyone in anyway to support his or her claims.

-For an example, in Pro's quote "Whoever spares the rod hates his son". Someone against Con's resolution can easily interpret it the opposite of how Pro interpretted it. The word "spare" essentially means "to give" or to "refrain from destroying". One can claim that this quote is saying that whoever "gives" the rod to his son hates his son, or whoever does not destroy the rod hates his son.

-Therefore, use of the bible is unreliable.

======================================================================================================


Arguments Against:


1. Distingction between Children and Dogs

-First of all, children and dogs obviously do not learn similarly, otherwise dogs would be able to understand human language as well as children. But they don't. And because children CAN understand human language, they are certainly able to learn differently than dogs.

-The age of children range from 1 - 13 years old. So obviously a 13 year old would learn differently than a dog. According to my experience in Biology, dogs learn through the activation of stimuli, which can be created artificially. A stimulus is basically a trigger for an organism's actions. For an example, the color red is a stimulus that, once seen, will make a bull aggressive. Spanking works on a dog well because if you hit a dog for doing something, the dog will eventually connect its pain with its actions after the 5th time its been punished. The dog has created its own stimulus. The action that got it punished will serve as the stimulus for pain. That is also how dogs understand language. However, for humans, this is not neccessary. Children genuinely understand language. They don't respond to language as a stimulus. They are able to reason and learn without the use of a stimulus.

-The dog brain is significantly smaller than the human brain.

-Therefore, I have disproved Pro's absured claim that Children learn like Dogs.

====================================================================================


Currently, I am restricted by time constraints and I apologize. I have been really busy lately working on my school play that I have been casted in. Therefore, I will keep the rest of my argument short.


Pro claims that spanking/smacking children is always more beneficial than harm. I will quickly provide examples of cases in which this is not true under my (currently 5 minute) time constraint.

-When the spanker has been misinformed and has misunderstood the situation. In this case, maybe the child is not at fault or has done nothing wrong, but has recieved punishment because the spanker has misunderstood in some way and thought that the child was at fault.

-Sometimes, the spanker can unintentionally seriously injure or wound the child.

-Sometimes, the child takes the punishment as more reason as to not follow discipline.











Debate Round No. 2
Dennybug

Pro

I concede, arguing that every child benefits from being spanked is completely stupid.
Defro

Con


-Furthermore, it is certainly not beneficial to spank mentally disabled children for doing something wrong because they would likely not be able to comprehend that they are being hurt for doing something wrong.

========================================================================

-When a child is hurt for disciplinary reason, it is true that they may start to have more discipline, but also at the cost of being physically hurt. That is why most of the time spanking a child for disciplinary reasons is equally beneficial than it is harmful. To achieve something, there must be a cost that is usually equal to the achievement. If you have a choice as to whether you should work out at the gym or go eat at your favorite fast food franchise, there are equal benefits and costs for both choices. If you choose the gym, your physical fitness is improved, but you lose the pleasure of your favorite food. If you choose the fast food, you get the pleasure of eating your favorite food, but your physical fitness degrades. The child may have learned discipline, but at the cost of having endured physical pain, which balances out the benefit and the harm.

-
Furthermore, hitting a person, no matter if they are children or not, is a violation of a person's bodily integrity and autonomy, which is arguably a basic human right.

========================================================================

-Pro has conceded, there is no need to go on.

Debate Round No. 3
Dennybug

Pro

I concede.
Defro

Con

Okay.

So......how's your sister?
Debate Round No. 4
Dennybug

Pro

I ask that whoever votes on this debate would consider Con's conduct. He's asked me a question which has zero relevance to children being spanked.
Defro

Con

lol.

The debate was already over since you conceded, which was 2 rounds ago. Therefore I am no longer obligated to stick to the debate. Besides, it does hold some relevance because your sister has gotten spanked before. And I deduced that because you told me about how your mom has spanked you when you were a kid, so it is likely your twinsister has also recieved spanking at least once.

But if you want to play like that, fine.

I ask voters to consider Pro's poor conduct by posting irrelevant pictures. Furthermore, unlike me, your irrelevance was integrated DURING the debate and not after. I have stated in my argument in round 2 that your images are invalid, and you conceded.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Dude. You should change your debate a bit. Someone can easily eat you if they find the flaw in your resolution. If no one accepts the debate and the flaw is still there, I'm going to accept this :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
DennybugDefroTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to Pro's concession, arguments go to Con. Conduct is shared, as the discussion about whether conduct was violated was going off-topic from both sides. I prefer to judge this neutrally. Con should have guessed from the topic that this was going to be a troll debate, because he's an experienced debater. This means he can't really complain about Pro's conduct in that regard. Sources go to Con, as he provided any at all. Fun little debate!
Vote Placed by sewook123 3 years ago
sewook123
DennybugDefroTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources cited by Pro. Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
DennybugDefroTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. There's no problem saying something off topic if it's just to fill up the rounds.