physical force is a justifiable method of punishing children

:Physical punishment also referred to as corporal punishment according to me is not at all a justifiable method of punishing children. I would like to give a few definitions to begin--- corporal punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child's behavior. I would like to note that this is significantly narrower than what the resolution allows me to argue, and thus, even if you can establish it, you will not have addressed my argument. :It is never right to hit a child. If they have a gun and it is necessary to disarm them, it is never right? If they are stealing it is never right to tackle them to retrieve property? That means you are arguing that the store owner they are stealing from is rightfully a slave, the fruits of his labour to be taken at whim. :Children have a right to be protected from physical abuse. No one has any rights if they are violating other people's rights. Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life. The meaning of the reciprocity clause is that when you violate the rights of another, all your rights are gone. Children are not special, they are not rightful masters to our "rightful slavery," they exist under the same rules. :Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims, may be the most oppressive. Fortunately, my argument is not derived from the good of the children in question. It is derived from the good of whoever the children may be victimizing. If they are victimizing no one, then the situation is not an appropriate one for physical force against children-- but this does not alter the resolution, which simply requires that some situation exist in which physical force against children is justified. :Most parents want to discipline their children without the use of physical punishment. Parents' disciplinary methods serve as strong models to children that teach them how to deal with challenges presented by life from day to day. It is important for parents to model appropriate behavior and to establish expectations as well as limits. The dignity and rights of children must be respected. Parents must consistently use fair and logical consequences whenever children fail to follow rules I should note that while it is possible to discipline children without pain compliance, it is essentially impossible to discipline anyone who take steps to resist punishment without recourse to some sort of physical force. :In 24 countries around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools(http://www.naturalchild.org......) . First, arguments from what is currently legal do not establish what should be, second, it is nevertheless legal to use force against a child who is creating a danger to others, including for teachers, which is still a punishment (A sanction for the offense), regardless of it's non-retributive intent. :As it is even against the law therefore i consider physical punishment to a be a crime and therefore there can be no justification for it Fallacious. It was once against the law to shelter Jews from Nazis. :In the eyes of the law physical punishment is same as murder Also nonsense, unless you can demonstrate it to carry the same sentence. I should note again that my opponent has not once attempted to address the essence of my argument.