Domestic Corporal Punishment is Always Immoral

My opponent states that I am "simply arguing more on a "emotional" level than an actual factual level." I have provided plenty of facts and sources directly from accredited research organizations, universities and major news networks, something my opponent has yet to do. Con writes that I want to make this debate about the Bible, implying that I was trying to use the Bible to show that DCP is not acceptable. This is a poor understanding of what I said. I selected that Bible verse as a way of showing why people do accept DCP. We"re on the same side, Con! We both believe the Bible condones DCP. And of course not all parents who use DCP are Christian. That was just part of my introduction of DCP, showing that there are multiple reasons people see DCP as acceptable, one of them being religious reasons. Personally, I don"t believe we should be relying on an ancient book to be good parents, but this is getting into a different debate. My opponent writes "Generally, when you get spanked, you don't want to ever be spanked again, therefore you will do what is right." Except spanking does not teach what is right. It only teaches that this particular act was wrong. Knowing what is wrong is not the same as knowing what is right. If a child was spanked for stealing money from the kitchen drawer, the child knows not to do it again. But does that mean it is ok to steal money from his friend"s house? After all, he is neither taking money from his parents nor is he in the same house, thus the same rules don"t apply, right? The child usually doesn"t learn why certain behaviors are bad after a spanking, only don"t do this and don"t do that. Con then makes the distinction between beating and discipline. Through DCP, parents strike their child repeatedly in a way that hurts them, sometimes with a belt or whip. This aligns with Con"s definition of beating. I would define beating as hurting someone for the sole purpose of hurting them. Call it whatever you"d like; I am arguing that it is wrong to hurt a child as a means of teaching them right from wrong. Con"s second source in round three writes "we often hear that corporal punishment is damaging because it "teaches violence," a nonsensical assertion if ever there were one." I ask my opponent to explain how this is nonsensical. What I see as nonsensical is hitting your child as a punishment for hitting his sister and expecting the boy to stop hitting people. Children look up to their parents; they are their role models. So it is to be expected that children will adopt similar behaviors from them, such as using violence as a way of sorting out problems. Further down, the source makes an attempt at justifying DCP, saying "After all, can you think of an animal that doesn"t at times use violence?" This is such a weak argument. It is called an appeal to popularity. The author is saying that because all other animals are violent, it is ok for us to be violent too. And this makes it ok to be violent towards our children? Many parents who use DCP are very conservative and say things like "We aren"t monkeys! We're better than that!" Yet, to justify DCP they say "oh, that"s ok because other animals are violent to." This logic is disappointing. Con requests that I argue more on a discipline side, claiming I view all parents who use DCP as child abusers. Please. I never said and never will say that every parent to ever spank their child is an abuser. The point I was trying to get across which my opponent may have misunderstood is phrased very well in my opponent"s source. "The committee's position is that spanking often evolves into abuse, which endangers a child's safety and can cause psychological damage" (http://www.parents.com...). What often begins as spanking can lose effectiveness over time, requiring harder and more painful strikes. The basic concept is that people have psychological and physical mechanisms which allows their mind and body to adapt to repetitive stimuli (ex. being able to sleep through the loud train that goes by your apartment every hour). Only when something new is introduced (greater pain) is a reaction elicited. Con writes "As lots of my sources have shown, the benefits of [spanking] do the child a great amount of good, especially when they get older." Why does my opponent ignore the mounds of scientific proof that DCP is harmful, yet expects me to believe her sources? Seeing that Con will not accept the overwhelming consensus of researchers that DCP is ineffective and damaging, I am happy to temporarily assume that all the studies that have ever been done on the matter are bogus. I ask my opponent to please answer this: if children can be raised properly without DCP (and many are), what practical benefits come from DCP? My opponent"s own source states the following. "There's no reason to get physical with a child when other discipline tactics are more effective" such as verbal reprimands (though not yelling), taking away privileges, and giving time-outs to deal with the misbehavior" (http://www.parents.com...). What"s wrong with no TV for a week? No dessert tonight? No treat with your lunch tomorrow? I ask my opponent to explain why there must be pain in order for children to learn good decision making. Why must a child physically suffer? If parents set boundaries for their children and gradually teach them about making wise choices, the notion of empathy, and the Golden Rule, the child will likely gain a stronger understanding of right and wrong. Pain and fear is not necessary and should not be used to discipline children.