Debate Rounds (5)
*The use of words being totally in caps during this debate will be to emphasize words, not to express yelling.
Please note, though, that I do believe spanking has its limits. I do not believe in spanking as soon as a child disobeys. I also do not believe spanking should be done with a harsh tool, especially not a belt.
Now onto my argument. Spanking is often a very effective way of punishment because the effects are IMMEDIATE. Unlike a grounding or a "time-out" you can not merely defy a corporal punishment. In fact, spanking can be used to teach as a part of discipline.
Example: your two-year old son is hitting his older sister. He won't listen to your reprimands because he doesn't want to and doesn't see any valid reason two. If you demonstrate to him what hitting feels like, he will feel less inclined to hit his sister because he realizes it hurts. Even if this is not the case, he has a valid reason now not to continue.
Spanking can be used as a helpful way to teach even more so if you show your love for you child after the punishment and show you just want to help them. If you follow this pattern, your child will be much less likely to be negatively affected by the punishment.
There are plenty of real life examples of people who have benefited from spanking. My own grandpa was a "wild child," so to speak. He told a story of how he was sent to a special school for kids who were called a "wild child". He was spanked till he bled, which would never even be allowed today, but he says he was thankful for the punishments in the long run. They straightened him out and he ended up graduating with the highest honors a student at that school could receive.
So, what's your rebuttal?
Also, if we are going to use real life examples I will use NFL player Adrian Peterson as an example. He was apparently beaten as a kid and this let him to beat his four-year-old child bloody. I understand that he probably has some sort of psychological disorder, but what if someone else like him gets the same message.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Conspiracyrisk forfeited this round.
Okay, I'm starting to get confused. What I thought you meant in your opening statement was different from what you did.
In any case, I need to move on to my rebuttals.
In round one, Con only gave an argument of authority. I can accept that if his other arguments are strong enough, but I'm not so sure because...
...My rebuttals for round three:
I didn't mean "Eye for an Eye;" I just was pointing out that a child needs to be hit to understand how hitting hurts. The same applies for pushing, shoving, slapping, etc.
Your next arguments are mainly just stating your own feelings, making for some pretty weak points, but I feel I must argue against them as well.
"If a parent teaches a child, in any respect, that violence is a fitting form of punishment than I feel as though it could be imprinted in his brain that violence is a solution when people won't do as he/she asks later in life."
First, Con used "than" when he should have used "then". That is a grammar mistake. (I am saying this because spelling/grammar is a part of the voting.)
Next, his argument merely says "I feel" rather than "it is". There is no source for what he is saying.
Even if we can accept his no-source information he didn't even identify as a fact, there are still problems. First, he was beaten, which Con said, but I clearly said that I am for spanking ONLY within reasonable boundaries (or at least, I tried to).
Next, Con said that he probably had a psychological disorder. People with psychological disorders don't necessarily have to have a bad personal history to be motivated to do what they do.
Finally, Con concluded with a "what if" question. Since spanking has been done for quite some time, I refuse to accept a "what if" argument, at least in this circumstance. If we were debating about whether or not something should be done that hasn't been done before, that'd be a different story.
I'd love to see your closing arguments, rebuttals, and closing statement. (Sorry you have to do all that in the same round, that was my fault.)
Also, should I point out all of your grammar mistakes? That is rather immature. I am not doing this debate to win, but to share my opinion and see what others think. That shows a difference in our motives. Whether or not I win is irrelevant to me. If I can change the mind on one person that would be enough to make this worth it.
"Next, Con said that he probably had a psychological disorder. People with psychological disorders don't necessarily have to have a bad personal history to be motivated to do what they do."
I never insinuated that someone with a psychological disorder had to have a bad history to be motivated to do what they do. Adrian used his childhood beating (boundaries unspecified) as an excuse to violently beat his children. If you are unsure what I am trying to say... ask! Please don't make assumptions. It only looks worse on you in the end.
Also, why just refuse to accept my "I feel" argument without rebutting it. If I didn't think it had a valid point I wouldn't have posted it.
This is referential to the Adrian Peterson topic. Adrian did not specify the boundaries of his beating. Since he didn't say whether he was spanked or downright beaten bloody my argument still stands.
"I didn't mean "Eye for an Eye;" I just was pointing out that a child needs to be hit to understand how hitting hurts. The same applies for pushing, shoving, slapping, etc."
An eye for an eye or the "law" of retaliation, is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree
By this definition (which I would assume you agree with) this is indeed, eye for an eye. At least until the child understands.
Pro, I almost had to give up on you during this debate. Since I know you in real life this only makes it even more disappointing. These are the two reasons that you angered me-
- I didn't find your arguments convincing in the least.
- I see now that you are in this to win, not to genuinely try to change things for the better.
While I admit, you have much better organization and slightly better grammar I feel as though you don't have a strong foundation for your beliefs. I hope that you either find some better arguments, or change how you feel.
I wish you the best of luck in all of your endeavors.
Note to voters: Go ahead, downvote me for improper grammar or bad organization, but at least take a good, long look at my arguments before jumping to conclusions.
Conspiracyrisk forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.