The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,519 times Debate No: 63564
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I argue that spanking is not a proper method of discipline under any circumstance. I take this stance because I find that there are a plethora of methods to discipline children that don't involve physical contact as a direct method of punishment. Now, hear me out. I don't think that a little spank will ruin a child's personality, but I do think that it is not an effective method. I am interested in seeing what my opponent thinks on the matter.


I believe that while spanking should not be the default punishment, it IS* an effective way of punishing children that, when kept within limits, is perfectly acceptable.

*The use of words being totally in caps during this debate will be to emphasize words, not to express yelling.
Debate Round No. 1


My opinions on spanking are not only my own, but a number of leading child psychologists feel the same. "It"s a very controversial area even though the research is extremely telling and very clear and consistent about the negative effects on children," - Sandra Graham-Bermann, PhD, a psychology professor and principal investigator for the Child Violence and Trauma Laboratory at the University of Michigan. Now, this is not an argument from authority as this is but one leg my argument stands on. Now, I ask my opponent, why would numerous studies by leaders in the field of child psychology say that spanking is bad for the mental well-being of children if it is not?


The point of my opening argument is that spanking is an effective way to punish children.

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?
Debate Round No. 2


Eye for an eye, I thought I knew you better. My point is that violence is not the solution PERIOD. I feel as though in this age 'psychological warfare' and 'reverse psychology' can go a lot farther than physical reprimands. I am not arguing that spanking is not an effective way to PUNISH, I am saying that there are other equally, if not more effective ways that are less likely to cause the child problems later on. Even a small spank can go a long way. 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.

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.
Debate Round No. 3


Well pro, you forfeited the previous argument, so I have nothing to rebut against. My previous arguments still stand. Please just address my arguments that you forfeited last round below. Voters, please don't hold this against pro, as long as he /she doesn't do it again.


First, I'm sorry I forgot to post my arguments.

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.)
Debate Round No. 4


Con... an argument from authority is only so if you are not providing any other arguments.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Closing Statement---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
A little tap on the butt at an early enough age will prevent whippings later on.

Don't you think it is odd that since the advent of people against spanking there is so much ridlin and such in schools.When my oldest was in first grade, a teacher called and told me he did something. I forget what it was. I said," spank him". She said they do not do that anymore.I just told her ,"then don't bother me with it. I told you the solution".

My daughter was a TSA that went into schools to control kids with behavior problems. She had to quit because she saw all those kids needed was a good whipping, and she could not do that. She did it with her own kids and never had to put up with open rebellion.Now any teen will try to get away with stuff. That is where grounding from activities comes in. Her 18 year old was caught speeding with her truck. He was grounded from driving her vehicle and even had to find another way to work. He was caught doing 90 in a 55 MPH zone.That is proper discipline. But not for a 2 year old. That is where a spank on the butt with stop a lot of future grief.

Now we are talking about parents that are grounded in doing honorable things.Dishonorable parents have very little to offer their children, no matter their financial status.Rich or poor.
Posted by RyddianDynia 3 years ago
Cheyennebodie, I don't think that it is as simple as whipping your kid and they are magically obedient as a result. Although I have one question for you... How to "whipping", and "a little tap on the butt" mesh? Those two sound quite different to me...
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
I say whip the kid if that is what is needed. Rebellion will only be broken with a whipping.If you start young. Then they will learn to respect your word.A little tap on the butt when young will not lead to child abuse in the future. When you say something, mean it. The worse thing you can do is say you will whip them, and not do it.

IO know society is trying to take that option from parents. And that is why the ridlin factories are in full operation.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
How many kids have you raised?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture