On Balance, Spanking is Detrimental

CorrelationCorrelative studies exist to point to what, with all things considered, is probably the cause of certain outcomes. In the absence of reasonable confounding variables that Con could have offered, why should we buy his claim that my evidence shows nothing? I’ve shown why spanking is more likely than not responsible for the behaviors mentioned, and Con’s response is essentially that it must be completely conspicuous to have any validity.Con’s overarching premise here is that, even when a study with a strong methodology controls for every possible confounding variable and has a high confidence interval, any conclusion that spanking is probably the cause of negative outcomes should be rejected without question. This is silly; my studies took the time to thoroughly control every variable that would probably confound the outcome, so Con would need a strong basis to dismiss them. As was mentioned earlier, a causal experiment would be unethical (parents wouldn’t volunteer to spank their kids in front of researchers), so in the absence of such, the next best thing must be looked at.All of Con’s studies are correlative too, so dismiss every study/analysis he offers if he’s right about this. Con argument here is essentially that, because causation can’t be demonstrated, all evidence both ways is inconclusive. If we accept this as true, then there’s no possible way for him to negate the resolution - his shared burden requires him to show that spanking isn’t a detriment. In order to do this, evidence is required, none of which would work as it would all be correlative.The exercise analogy is absolutely relevant to this, because while no study has proven (by Con’s standards) causality between exercise and a lower risk of certain diseases, the research is unequivocally regarded as conclusive. You don’t need a causal experiment to show how two things are inextricably linked. My studiesa) All three of the studies I mentioned *do* mention controlling for prior aggression. Con trips up by saying my first link wasn’t included in my defense, but the first and seconds links are of the same study, and I cited the second one.b) Con plays bait-and-switch by asserting that cross-sectional methodology is superior to longitudinal in R2, and then goes along with my explanation the latter is better than the former in R3. Which is it?c) He alleges that 2 of my studies “have been addressed” because they’re included in larger meta-analyses that came to different conclusions. That’s not a rebuttal - I individually presented those 2 studies and explained the conclusions they came to, and Con dodges them by asserting that other studies overshadow them somehow. This is basically a concession. He then says that his analyses “show that confounders absolutely matter and they absolutely affect the results when adjusted for”, but doesn’t even mention the confounders he’s speaking of, so it’s impossible to follow his argument. It’s almost as if Con was in a rush to type this.d) Con points to *one* study in the Gershoff meta and says its broad definition of spanking is evidence that every study could have questionable definitions. Firstly, Con hasn’t shown a study that conflates actual abuse with spanking, so there’s no reason to assume that most studies use definitions that aren’t colloquial. Secondly, he hasn’t explained how minor slaps to other parts of the body are worse than striking the behind, so why would this matter anyway? Thirdly, his definition dilemna should also apply to his studies, so why are mine so problematic?Con’s studiesTime-outs were found to be less significantly associated with bad behavior as spanking in the non-physical discipline study, so they aren’t really comparable. He states that “the confounder in [the] case of child psychotherapy is absolutely the case in spanking research too”, but *what* confounder is being talked about here? There’s no elaboration given, so there’s no way to dissect this context-less point.Con defends against my larger amount of studies point by alleging that Larzelere’s meta has a different methodology than Gershoff’s. But his sources don’t even state what his analysis’ studies’ methodologies are. If you follow his 6th link, it takes us to a vague abstract that says very little about the analysis. A Google search turns up nothing for the actual text of the paper, and most of the papers his link references aren’t actually part of the analysis (there are 95 instead of 26). His other meta-analysis (Ferguson 2013) is the same way: nothing except for abstract was linked. I therefore urge the readers to dismiss any claims made off of those sources, as their inaccessability makes them impossible to respond to.SummaryI’ve showed why each of Con’s points (correlation, design, definitions, confounds) don’t hold up against my studies. Even if a couple of his points are true, they either apply to only some of my references or apply equally to his as well. Additionally, my dating violence study was *entirely* dropped by him, so extend that.My 5 pieces of evidence I offered trump Con’s 3 (2 of which were just abstracts). My stronger impacts, therefore, affirm the resolution conclusively.Thanks for the debate Con.