The Instigator
miketheman1200
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
JMD
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

We should not strike children as a form of punishment

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 4 votes the winner is...
miketheman1200
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 802 times Debate No: 43284
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

miketheman1200

Pro

1st round is acceptance.

By strike I mean hitting/spanking as a form of punishment to acquire the desired behavior.
JMD

Con

But let's say the child has possession of a firearm and you can't reach the phone to call 911 without being shot. Wouldn't hitting/spanking be a bit justified?
Debate Round No. 1
miketheman1200

Pro

It isnt very constructive to invent once in a million year scenarios to derail moral rules. The point of this debate was to prove that a general rule is that we should not strike kids as a form of punishment.

Even so, your incredibley unuseful example is one of self defense and not a case of punishment for some juvenile act.

The basic idea is that when the parent uses striking or hitting to punish a child, the parent is using fear to get the child to behave in a certain way. They are holding fear against their children to make them do what they want. This in itself is wrong because it teaches children that they too can exploit people throught the use of force/fear. It teaches them that they can hurt others to obtain what they want.

Children tend to pick up on the tendencies of those close to them, almost always being, the parents. Thus if the parents display violence toward the child in any sense, those tendencies will be picked up and will be fundemental to how the child acts in the future.

Much of the time spanking is done out of anger and so is not done thoughtfuly or rationally. It is mostly a way to vent anger and to do so unto ones child is extremley terrible. Even if it is done in a "thoughtful manner" it can still have harmful spychological effects on the child. Children tend to be more reclusive, anti social, and resentful when they are spanked or hit at an early age. They are also more likley to spank their children later in life. Another effect is slower brain development.

Not only are the mental and physical effects detremental but its use is largley contradictory. Many parents tell their kids not to hit or use force against others and then break this rule themselves. This can be confusing to the child and will falsify the moral rule the parent is trying to teach.

I hope this indroduction will be properly adressed by my opponent. Thank you.

Sources:

http://www.themoneytimes.com...

http://health.usnews.com...;

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...;

http://nospank.net...;
JMD

Con

Pro: "It isnt very constructive to invent once in a million year scenarios to derail moral rules."

Con: http://zev.hubpages.com...

Pro: "Even so, your incredibley unuseful example is one of self defense and not a case of punishment for some juvenile act."

Con: *incredibly

Pro: "This in itself is wrong because it teaches children that they too can exploit people throught the use of force/fear."

Con: *through

Pro: "Even if it is done in a "thoughtful manner" it can still have harmful spychological effects on the child."

Con: *psychological

Pro: "Not only are the mental and physical effects detremental but its use is largley contradictory."

Con: *detrimental
*largely
Debate Round No. 2
miketheman1200

Pro

Thank you con.


Con has dropped literally every argument and has instead chose to point out my several grammatical errors. Thank you Con.

As for your link, it is still a matter of self defense, this debate is around the use of hitting or spanking as punishment.

I hope Con actually tries to argue for what seems to be their first debate. As for my grammar, I apologize, it was a late night.
JMD

Con

Sorry about that, it was when you called my example 'unuseful' when I was trying to contribute to the debate that it really became stressful. I was trying to explain a particular scenario that I thought could be helpful to the discussion.
Debate Round No. 3
miketheman1200

Pro

I understand. I should have changed the requirements so that you could not have accepted this. I understand that you were trying to make a point but it was not relative to the resolution. Even so when you accept a debate it is either to prove a point or refute one. Sorry for my harshness. Maybe we can debate another time after you've gained some more experience.
JMD

Con

We can consider this argument finished.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
Yes, I know, I was really out of it and the spell correct thing didn't work when i submitted it.
Posted by debate339 3 years ago
debate339
con- its Psychological not Spychological
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by debate339 3 years ago
debate339
miketheman1200JMDTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: it was a horrible debate, con was very rude in making grammatical corrections and then avoided the topic all together therefor i give the argument to pro
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
miketheman1200JMDTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave arguments.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
miketheman1200JMDTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go towards Pro for making a logical and sound argument as to why children should not get spanked. I thought Pro was very unnecessarily confrontational and lacked spelling and grammar as pointed out. this reason Con gets grammar and conduct points. Sources go to Pro, as Con only cited a news story and not studies.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
miketheman1200JMDTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided an argument for why children should not be struck as a form of punishment. Con did not provide a valid response. Instead he offered corrections to grammatical errors. It seemed Con was more interested in trolling rather than debating the topic as Pro asked.Good luck to you both in future debates.