The Instigator
noctos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

physical discipline is it bad for 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 2 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,051 times Debate No: 20928
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

noctos

Pro

physical discipline should it be out lawed? in America you can barely spank your kid any more with out legal issues. let alone give them 5 across the eyes. what happened to America why is it so unheard or taboo t beat your kids when they get out of line?
phantom

Con

I would like to thank pro for making this debate. I would also like to thank him for advocating my case. For indeed all my opponent has done is uphold MY burden. The resolution: "physical discipline is it bad for your children?". My opponent is pro and therefore must argue that physical discipline is bad for children, but on the contrary, due to some mind lapse or state of confusion, my opponent has chosen to argue against his position. Look at the resolution; look at what side my opponent took; now look at my opponents arguments. All of them promote my case.

Thank you and vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
noctos

Pro

mind lapse yes as in due to drunken ness i again error-ed in my pro or con choice. please allow me to apologize as i have been on the site for about 2 hours when i created this topic. and i'm still poorly informed of how code of conduct works. as that maybe i will attempt to defend a view i do not fallow.
phantom

Con

Devils advocate my dear sir! That is always an option. But in all seriousness we have three rounds left. That's the normal amount to argue. Arguing against your beliefs is a viable option if you want.
Debate Round No. 2
noctos

Pro

due to an error while drunk i'm not really prepared for this debate but i shall attempt to engage my opponent is a fairly aggressive battle of wits .

it is becoming a more well know policy across America that to strike your child is considered battery. Parents throughout the country are facing criminal charges for attempting to persuade the actions of children in to a construction fashion.

is it right / proper to strike a child
i would argue no. as adults and young teens are educated not to strike each other how can it then become acceptable to use physical force on the young.
it can be just as effective to mental out wit the small children in to conforming in to the status quo.
there has been reports and research performed over the years about parents you use pain to persuade children from right or wrong only further the use of psychical discipline in the next generation.
it has also be research that some say should kids that are beaten by there parents are more likely to wind up in jail or prison. as it taught them might takes right.
phantom

Con

phantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
noctos

Pro

noctos forfeited this round.
phantom

Con

btw none of us agree with the side we're arguing as I am also playing devils advocate.

"i was beaten as i grew up and believe it made me a fair better human since i have everything a person needs and or wants and have never been arrested or anything thing equally horrible."
-Certain member of this site.[1]

I just like to start a debate off with a quote. :)

My opponent uses faulty logic. He concludes that if children are taught not to strike eachother than why can parents strike their kids. The answer is authority. Parents have authority over kids, just as the government has authority over US citizens. We are taught not too confine or kill people but the government does so, because it has authority. The pro's logic is fallacious.


My opponent claims that using physical punishment now would only further the use of it latter. This is completely false. My opponent admits himself that using physical punishment is becoming accepted as wrong. This could only mean that it is going to become less common. The pro argument is backwards.

Corporal punishment has a deterrent effect. Spanking a child will deter him from committing the act again. Fear is the best way of restraining kids from misbehaving.

Results show parents find spanking works.[2]

Studies say children who are spanked grow up to be more happy and successful.[3]

Other studies show spanking causes children to perform better in school and have better behavior.[4]

Only in western parts of the world is spanking even considered a big issue[6]






[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.nospank.net...
[3] http://www.foxnews.com...
[4] http://rightwardleaning.blogspot.com...
[5] http://www.helium.com...
[6] http://www.circleofmoms.com...
[7]

Debate Round No. 4
noctos

Pro

noctos forfeited this round.
phantom

Con

Dance with the, dance with the, dance with the weasel.



Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
I just realized how corny that video is
Posted by noctos 5 years ago
noctos
i dont have kids breeding is horrible idea

but i was beaten as i grew up and believe it made me a fair better human since i have everything a person needs and or wants and have never been arrested or anything thing equally horrible
Posted by Grae 5 years ago
Grae
That fact that you are A) drunk, B) from Indiana and C) attempting this debate, leads me to believe you hit your kids.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
noctosphantomTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: All seven points to Con. I gave Con conduct because not only did Pro argue against his resolution in the first round (another argument against drunkenness, I guess), but Pro forfeited twice while Con forfeited once. Therefore, Con's conduct was technically better. The rest should be plenty self-explanatory, and I voted with 33 minutes to spare.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 5 years ago
PeacefulChaos
noctosphantomTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Both sides forfeited, so no one gets conduct. Con had much better spelling and grammar than Pro did. Con is the only one to have provided sources. Pro failed to refute any of Con's arguments, and did not have sources to back up his own; therefore, Con has ultimately won this debate.