Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children

Seeing as how this is the final round of the debate, I'm going to wrap things up by giving a summary of my opponent's rebuttal, a review of what has gone on so far in the debate, and why the judges should vote for me in the considerations for who is the winner of this debate. There are now two reasons why my opponent has cheated in this debate and one reason as to why I didn't repeat the action that he did. My opponent has made an argument in the comment section, and while he asked several good debaters and the DDO president as to what he should do, it is still unfair that my opponent has made an argument outside of the bounds of this debate, outside of the regulations, the rules, the time constraints, all for the action of trying to sway the audience toward accepting his definition over mine. The DDO president is only charge of the rules that guide the site in general about conduct toward the other members, but outside of that, he/she has no control over the rules of this debate. If my opponent has something to say about my case, he needs to keep it here within the bounds of the debate he accepted and out of the comments section. Everything he wrote in the comment section has just been an unfair advantage against me, so for the sake of the integrity of this debate, I suggest to the judges to ignore anything he's written there. Not only that, but he mentioned himself that he asked for help from other debaters about his definition when in an honest debate, he shouldn't be turning for more than one person to help him with his case. While I'm here arguing my case alone, he's got more than one person helping him out in this debate, which is also an unfair advantage against me. My opponent says that I could've done the exact same thing, but I wanted to stay within the bounds of the debate in order to ensure an honest debate against my opponent, and I can assure the judges that I certainly didn't need the help of 5 or 6 or however many other debaters (and POTENTIAL JUDGES OF THIS DEBATE) to help me out with my own case. If I don't win the debate in the judges eyes, I certainly, at least, deserve the point for conduct in this debate. Most of my opponent's case surrounds his own definition of corporal punishment, which my opponent himself has said was not from a dictionary or a reliable source of any sort. My opponent attacks my case saying that I needed to provide my own definition just to be able to uphold my case, but if that condemns me in any way, that would also knock down his own case because his entire debate is centered around his own perception of what is corporal punishment, his own definition, and as I have explained to the judges in this debate, his definition is a very limited and narrow to fully encompass what corporal punishment is. Corporal punishment is not just spanking, but it can also be belting or hitting with a switch or slapping on the face. It encompasses that as well, and while my definition is more broad, still gives the determining factor as to what is abuse and keeps it distinct, and comes from a reliable medical source, my opponent continues to give this very limited, unofficial definition made by his own perception of what is corporal punishment as well as this strawman argument that I'm also placing in abuse as a part of corporal punishment when I made it clear the distinction between corporal punishment and abuse. Because of this fact, that pretty much knocks down the majority of my opponent's debate because his entire case was centered around this definition he provided, meaning that he was analyzing the wrong thing or very limited thing whereas my case encompassed the entirety of the definition. Probably the funniest part of the debate was where my opponent tries to mock my case where I mentioned that corporal punishment can lead to these effects, but in reality, he's making a strawman by saying that I'm somehow trying to prove that corporal punishment will always lead to these effects. I'm also arguing that corporal punishment can lead to these effects, and what my rebuttal was (which my opponent didn't really properly respond to) that because corporal punishment can at all increase the risk for these negative effects in the future, that makes corporal punishment's use immoral and something that a parent ought not use when the primary responsibility is to ensure the full security of his/her child. Just the fact that it can lead to these effects makes corporal punishment something that oughtn't be used. I have responded to his rebuttal against Sub 1a considering that I have spoken against his definition of this debate, and if you look back at his rebuttal against that point, you will realize that this was the main thing that he used: his own definition. If my opponent really wants to knock down my subpoint 1c, he's going to have to prove that all of the alternatives to corporal punishment are ineffective for use against children. What my argument was that there are so many alternatives to whooping a child that corporal punishment is not required. My opponent is very right when he says that not every punishment will work the same on every child, which is why there are alternatives that are effective and humane. Probably the most notorious of his case is his argument against Gershoff's study. My main response is that he makes this blanket statement against the entirety of my evidence posted in this argument, but the only thing he argues against is Gershoff. Even if my opponent is right and my evidence isn't 100% effective, that's okay, because I have 10 or 11 more studies that my opponent did not respond to entirely, and he's really going to need to make analysis on all of my studies in order to show that all of them are ineffective, which he can't do now considering that would be a violation of his own rules because he would be posting new evidence at the final round. So, at this point, extend all of my other evidence across the flow. As I have proven, corporal punishment is not the optimal mode of punishment against children, and considering that was the entire thesis of my first contention, I have indeed fully upheld my contention because I have successfully upheld my subpoints. My opponent really failed to make an effective argument against my second contention. It shows that he really does not have an understanding of the resolution because he keeps bringing this back to the US and himself when he says that he doesn't care about what the documents I've posted say until this country ratifies the document in question. Some questions to ponder: is my opponent the only parent in the world? Is the US the only country in the world? Does the resolution specify anywhere the United States? The answer to these questions is no. The document serves as a definition of what is human rights and is more universally accepted, and though the laywers in question are not child health experts, they certainly are experts at knowing what the rights of the human being are. So, since my opponent didn't really effectively respond to the main meat of my second contention, extend it across the flow. My opponent's rebuttal is very weak. He makes no real defense of his definition of corporal punishment, other than his unfair advantage in the comment section. There was no real point in the argument about parental rights other than the parent has to decide what is best for his child, but I have shown you that corporal punishment is not the best. My opponent analyzes the wrong thing in his third point as well. My opponent has no evidence linking corporal punishment to good of society in history and no analysis as to the amount of corporal punishment among society nor frequencies, so ignore that point. As for casual link, look at my rebuttals in 1a and 1b. Judges, you will vote for me because I was the most fair and gave you the most optimal analysis of corporal punishment as well as effectively tackled my opponent' entire case.