Corporal Punishment of Children Should be Illegal

Rebuttal: My opponent brings up a few crucial points for his argument that I'll refute in order of appearance. Firstly, the scenario you paint about the "five year old boy who's very naughty," is a horrible one to be sure. But where we draw the line is important. Why not shoot the kid? That'll make things easier. Not to kill of course, just a flesh wound. He's acting out over the top and you are his parent. He would learn from a gunshot to the arm. I bet he'd never do any of that 'naughty' stuff again. Now, I am not equating the severity of spanking with the severity of a healable gunshot, but I am comparing your logical conclusion with the one I have demonstrated. Just because something is effective in controlling someone, doesn't mean it is right. Your case that children are not rational actors has little bearing on whether or not they should be physically punished. A mentally retarded forty-year-old thinks differently than a 20-year old student from Auckland. This doesn't mean one should be beaten and the other shouldn't. Unless you're suggesting that because a child's brain works differently, the only available option for punishment is spanking. I would argue this isn't the case. The gunshot idea still applies. I engage in hyperbole only to emphasize the point that while one method may be the easiest form of controlling a child, that doesn't make it the right way. There are other forms of negative reinforcement. In one paragraph you say: "Most parents practice positive reinforcement in this style, such as giving good children a lollypop or a pat on the back. If that's good parenting, then I suggest that negative reinforcement (light spanking, for instance), to avoid undesirable behaviors, should also be classed as good parenting. That's why corporal punishment is sometimes required" I agree that negative reinforcement is also good parenting. But my whole point is that spanking isn't a healthy form of negative reinforcement. Once again, if you give your child a flesh wound that will definitely heal it is also a form of negative reinforcement, but it is not an acceptable form. I agree with your premise, but the conclusion you draw is lacking. If you make your child go on a timeout, take away their favorite toy, or refuse to take them to the movie theater like they wanted, these are all forms of effective negative reinforcement that doesn't involve physical violence. And as for the line 'That's why corporal punishment is sometimes required. " I disagree completely. Once again, corporal punishment, like gunshots, or knife wounds isn't the only form of negative reinforcement. And it is not a healthy form either. "I see the harm of corporeal punishment as going deeper than that, however, as removing the power from parents to determine how to do good upbringing - which inevitably means good upbringing often does not occur. " Removing the power from parents on how to do a good upbringing in many cases is a good thing. Some parents think it's okay to beat their children. Others may even think that a good few days of starving or dehydration is a good way to teach a child how to 'become a man. ' These powers have been removed by courts and legislature because they are deemed unfit forms of parenting. In the same way, I think corporal punishment should be added to the list of outlawed things. There are still a host of positive and negative forms of reinforcement that can be used to bring up your child. If a parent can't think of a way to take away a toy, not allow a kid to see his friend on the weekend, not allow the kid to play with his pet, or to ground the child, as an effective punishment strategy, and if that same parent thinks that violence and physically beating a child is the only way to teach that child, then I would argue that there is something seriously wrong with the parent. Also, your point about Sweden doesn't bear on the issue. Just because parents were unable to control themselves or control their tempers and not beat their kids, doesn't mean that the kids should be punished because of it. Basically you're saying that kids should accept a little abuse from parents so they don't have to face a lot of abuse of the foster system. Just because a parent can't follow the law and refuses to think of actual forms of controlling their child without resorting to physical violence, doesn't mean that corporal punishment should be allowed. If a host of parents felt it was okay to beat their children (as was common in many third culture countries) black and blue to the point they break bones and refused to stop when it was outlawed, does that mean it shouldn't have been outlawed? No. It doesn't follow. Defense: In his first rebuttal he makes a few claims about how children regard their parents' actions and which ones they'll try themselves. There is no proof suggesting a child doesn't want to drive a car. They may simply not have the access to mimic this particular action of their parents. I have already cited sources suggesting that children mimic their parents. If a parent swears, so will the child. If a parent tells dirty jokes, so will the kid. And if a parent hits, in many cases, so will the son or daughter. The source he sites about a long case study has this to say: "I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instills violence in kids," she said. An occasional mild smack hardly constitutes usual corporal punishment. An occasional mild smack can be forgiven, because children are capable of forgiveness. Some parents may shout hurtful things at their children once or twice, this doesn't constitute emotional or verbal abuse. A child can forgive. Some parents may forget to feed a child once or twice, this isn't neglect it can be pardoned. So when a case study uses the mildest form of something, expect to see extremely mild results. Second con argues that smacking the bottom doesn't yield the same physical results as smacking a face. I agree. I never said it did. I said it had the same consequences. If you stab someone in the knee as opposed to the heart, you will not cause as much damage but you will still be guilty of 'attempted murder. ' If you punch someone in the arm instead of the face you are still guilty of 'battery. ' If you smack a bottom just because it will 'cause less damage' it doesn't follow that that makes it alright. The same consequences exist no matter where you strike. Not physical (it still causes pain and causes damage of welts, scarring prevention of being able to sit down), but emotional and legal. And once again I disagree that corporal punishment is 'required. ' Third, I agree not all corporal punishment is harsh. Not all verbal abuse is barbed. Not all hateful rhetoric is overt. But it is still there and it still teaches the same thing. And in the long run it still has the potential to yield adverse results. Finally, my argument is that spanking is bad for society because it causes aggressive behavior, violent tendencies and stunts emotional growth. My points still stand. They were not refuted, but played down to the most minimal possible effect such as 'a light occasional slap. ' If I steal only a gumball from a grocery store am I guilty of theft? If I only whisper a small sexual joke about a coworker am I guilty of sexual harassment? Just because con has taken the most mild case study, doesn't mean that the crime committed is any less serious. I never said a child should be treated like an adult. I said a child should be protected from violence like adults are protected from violence. This debate isn't about treating children like adults, unless you're claiming the only difference between a child and an adult is that adults are not spanked. Which it isn't.