Parents should have the right to discipline their children(s) physically.

This debate is crucial. I will be using the American Humane Association and my personal opinion to defend my points. And will be providing sources as a reference to the results of physical discipline. Since you want to point out an example of how your parents discipline you, I will like to give a personal example. My little brother(14-incident happen when he was 13) has done something wrong, he has stolen headphones. When I let both our parents (mom & dad) know of his act, they both took a different approach. The mom, thinking physically discipline is a means to discipline her son, took that approach. Our father, having heard about this, had a little walk with my little brother and talked to him. Result: For weeks, the son and his mom never talked, they never looked each other in the face, and when one is coming, the other goes away. He was telling me how he's mad, and how he can't wait to get out of the house. He also told me how even though he knew he was wrong, our father was better in the way he took it, and from there he learned his lesson. Still today, he wants to leave the house. Why? Because this is not the first time he had been hit by her. And our father has constantly said he does not believe in hitting children, and that our mother shouldn't be doing it. After seeing this result, and seeing what turns out, who's right. This is not abuse. This is just a normal discipline. This act has created remorse against the mother. Your's has to do with spoon, belt, and hand spanking. His was just slaps. Since this psychically discipline, my brother has shown all these act listed by the American Humane Association: Increases anxiety and fear Hinders the development of empathy and compassion for others(slaps his little brother when he gets him mad, gotten into fights) Makes children angry in response (He been angry and came talking to me) Heightens aggression toward others (towards teachers and friends and his enemies) Decreases compliance and increases resistance Harms relationship with parent or caregiver (he wants to leave the house. ) Decreases self-esteem Teaches that violence is an acceptable way to handle conflict (he has been involve in alot of fights at school) Now you state that: Discipline is imperative to a child's development. By using Discipline alone, you simply undermine the purpose of this debate. Discipline itself, and physical discipline are very different. Discipline is: The act of teaching the wrong from the right, not through physical force, but through communications. Physical Discipline is: The act of disciplining a child with force, in hope of teaching them not to do something again. You can view these two as a short term and long term: Discipline is the long term, physical discipline is the short term. Discipline is a slow process and physical discipline is a faster process. Even though the discipline process may be slow, it will have a long term beneficial to that child. By using physical discipline you're trying to achieve something quick, you're trying to instill a quicker learning in the child, which he/she may forget, and if it fails, than it'll be another physical discipline that could lead to abuse. By using Discipline you're communicating, or otherwise teaching a child right from wrong. It's a way for them to learn better and to see their mistakes and how they can improve on it. Back to the point I was trying to make: For the purpose of this debate, we're talking about physical discipline, so if you mistakenly met physical discipline is imperative to a child's development, that is not right. According to the American Humane Association: "Children in the 1997 study whose parents used corporal punishment to reduce anti-social behavior actually experienced the opposite from their children in the long run an increased probability of aggression and other antisocial behavior. Disciplining children by spanking does not facilitate learning. Instead, it may halt the unwanted behavior only while the child is in the adult"s presence, or it may scare a child into submission. While it may teach a child what not to do, it fails to teach a child what is expected of him or her and what is an alternate behavior. " I'm glad you pointed this out and I want to talk about it: "The situation concerning the mother and her child seems like her physical actions originated from anger instead of trying to the teach the child a lesson. " So if every parent trying to use physical discipline as a means to discipline their child, are they teaching them anything, as you yourself as pointed out "instead of trying to teach the child a lesson. What lesson does that child learns than? What I'm trying to take from your point is the fact you said "actions originated from anger. " And you're exactly right. And what happens when anger take hold of the parent. .. it leads to harming the child. And even though they may not mean it, it could lead to unwanted injury as according to the American Humane Association: Spanking in these circumstances may lead to an unintentional injury or more serious abuse. So no, I do not support that concept that " parents do have the right to discipline their children physically and it should stay that way. " It shouldn't stay that way. It harms family relationship, hinder the growth and development of the child, and leads to other behavior such as retaliation and running away from home. I look forward to my opponent reply. . http://www.americanhumane.org... . http://www.naturalchild.org... . http://www.theblaze.com... . http://www.cnn.com... . http://www.aacap.org...