BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is dubious that corporal punishment helps discipline children.

Even the power of physical punishment to teach a child the difference between right and wrong is dubious; a young child may learn that the adult is displeased, but not why. Spanking will cause a state of extreme distress and confusion which makes it less likely they will analyse their behaviour with clarity. In older children disciplined at school, a physical punishment is likely to provoke resentment and further misbehaviour.
Corporal punishment fosters criminality and delinquency.

Dr. Ralph Welsh, who has given psychological exams to over 2,000 delinquents has said: "...it is now apparent that the recidivist male delinquent who was never struck with a belt, board, extension cord, fist, or an equivalent is virtually nonexistent. Even after 10 years, the full impact of this discovery is still difficult to comprehend."
Not clear whether corporal punishment increases abuse

David Benatar. "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: "Clearly there are instances of abuse and of abusive physical punishment. But that is insufficient to demonstrate even a correlation between corporal punishment and abuse, and a fortiori a causal relationship. Research into possible links between corporal punishment and abuse has proved inconclusive so far. Some studies have suggested that abusive parents use corporal punishment more than nonabusive parents, but other studies have shown this not to be the case.(7) The findings of one study,8 conducted a year after corporal punishment by parents was abolished in Sweden, suggested that Swedish parents were as prone to serious abuse of their children as were parents in the United States, where corporal punishment was (and is) widespread. These findings are far from decisive, but they caution us against hasty conclusions about the abusive effects of corporal punishment."
Corporal punishment is an issue for national not international law.

Corporal punishment is an issue that is sensitive to individual cultures in different countries around the world. For this reason, it is wrong to apply international law at the expense of national law. Each nation must make this judgement based on public feelings regarding the practice, as this is one of the more important elements in whether it can be deemed acceptable or not. Like many moral issues, there is not blanket answer, and it is important to defer to local populations' interpretation of morality and culture to determine the appropriate public policy and law.
Corporal punishment can lower a child's IQ

"Child Corporal Punishment: Spanking. The anti-spanking position". Religious tolerance: "Spanking lowers a child's IQ: A study at the University of New Hampshire, released in 1998-JUL, found that spanking children apparently slows down their intellectual development. 3 A study of 960 children found an average 4 point reduction in IQ among students, from and average IQ of 102 (above average) for children who are not spanked, to an average IQ 98 (below average) for who are. A reduction of 4 points is enough to have a significant negative functional effect on the students. More information."
Corporal punishment does not represent teacher failures

David Benatar. "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: "there is a big difference between [...] a failure in the pupil, and a failure in the teacher. In either case it is true, in some sense, that the teacher failed to discourage the child from doing wrong--failed to prevent failure in the child. However, it is not a failure for which the teacher necessarily is responsible. I am well aware that the responsibility for children's wrongdoing is all too often placed exclusively at the door of children themselves, without due attention to the influences to which they are subjected. However, there is a danger that in rejecting this incorrect evaluation, teachers (and parents) will be blamed for all shortcomings in children."
Corporal punishment should be limited, but not abandoned

David Benatar. "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: "Opponents of the corporal punishment of children are rightly critical of its extensive use and the severity with which it is all too often inflicted. They have been at pains to show that corporal punishment is not used merely as a last resort, but is inflicted regularly and for the smallest of infractions.(1) They have also recorded the extreme harshness of many instances of corporal punishment.(2) [...] I have no hesitation in joining the opposition to such practices, which are correctly labeled as child abuse. Where I believe that opponents of corporal punishment are wrong is in saying that physical punishment should never be inflicted."
Corporal punishment is illegal under international law.

Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article clearly prohibits any physical violence or punishment against children, which includes corporal punishment: "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and education measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programs to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement."[13]
Violence of corporal punishment is never justified as "last resort"

Laurie A. Couture. "10 pro-corporal punishment arguments & 10 commonsense answers". 2003: "Argument #4: 'I only use corporal punishment as a last resort.' Answer: This reasoning teaches children that it is acceptable to use violence as a last resort to getting their way or to solving a difficult problem. This teaches that violence is the end result to frustrating situations that seem to have no other solution. Wars are fought on this principle. This argument is no more acceptable than an angry spouse saying that they "only" hit their mate "as a last resort" to a problem."
Corporal punishment helps protect teachers and adults

Walter Williams. "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: "During my youth, I might have been doing something mischievous, such as throwing stones. An adult would come over to me and ask, 'Does your mother know you're out here throwing stones?' I'd reply, 'No sir or no ma'am,' and hope that the matter ended there. [...] Today, it's quite different. An adult correcting a youngster risks being cursed and possibly assaulted. That's a sad commentary. Adults are justifiably afraid of children. Do we Americans as parents, teachers, principals and others in positions of authority have the guts and willpower to control our youngsters?"
Corporal punishment often escalates to child abuse

"Child Corporal Punishment: Spanking. The anti-spanking position". Religious tolerance: "It can escalate to abuse: Because a spanking works for a while, the parent often repeats the spanking whenever the child misbehaves. Corporal punishment may then become a standard response to any misbehavior. This can lead to increasingly frequent and harsher spanking which can exceed the "reasonable force" threshold and become abuse."
Quotations from the Bible that promote corporal punishment.

Proverbs 23:14. The authorship is traditionally attributed to King Solomon: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." "He who spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who loveth him is chasteneth him betimes." (King Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs [13:24]. "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15) "Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod. And deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13)
Corporal punishment is a good tool for disciplining unruly children

Walter Williams. "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: "Regardless of what the experts preached, the undeniable fact is the 'uncivilized' practice of whipping children produced more civilized young people. Youngsters didn't direct foul language to, or use it in the presence of, teachers and other adults. In that 'uncivilized' era, assaulting a teacher or adult never would have crossed our minds. Today, foul language and assaults against teachers are routine in many schools. For some kinds of criminal behavior, I think we'd benefit from having punishment along the lines of Singapore's caning as a part of our judicial system."
Scripture can be cited to enforce or debunk corporal punishment.

"The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." [Shakespeare] The Bible frequently condones practices that are outrageous to the modern sensibility. It sometimes promotes what would appear to be retribution or wanton acts of violence, while at other times it promotes a more Jesus-like philosophy of complete non-violence and compassion. So, while there are passage in the Bible that give support to corporal punishment, there are also ones that clearly condemn it. For this reason, little value should be assigned to individual passages in the Bible as they relate to corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment can be regulated within orderly framework.

Corporal punishment must be used as part of a wider strategy and at the correct time: when other immediate discipline has failed; when the child understands their behaviour and has had an opportunity to explain it; and after an initial warning and opportunity for the child to repent. Crucially, the person delivering the punishment must not be angry at the time. This undermines much of the hysterical argument against corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment often over-responds to innocent child behavior

Jan Hunt. "Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids". The Natural Child Project: "2. In many cases of so-called 'bad behavior', the child is simply responding in the only way he can, given his age and experience, to neglect of basic needs. Among these needs are: proper sleep and nutrition, treatment of hidden allergy, fresh air, exercise, and sufficient freedom to explore the world around him. But his greatest need is for his parents' undivided attention. In these busy times, few children receive sufficient time and attention from their parents, who are often too distracted by their own problems and worries to treat their children with patience and empathy. It is surely wrong and unfair to punish a child for responding in a natural way to having important needs neglected. For this reason, punishment is not only ineffective in the long run, it is also clearly unjust."
Corporal punishment can ethically help save a child's future

Walter Williams. "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: "Let's think about cruelty. Today, it's not uncommon for young criminals to be arrested, counseled and released to the custody of a parent 20 or 30 times before they spend one night in jail. Such a person is a very good candidate for later serving a long prison sentence or, worse, facing the death penalty. If you interviewed such a person and asked: "Thinking back to when you started your life of crime, would you have preferred a punishment, such as caning, that might have set you straight or be where you are today?" I'd bet my retirement money that he'd say he wished someone had caned some sense into him. That being the case, which is more cruel: caning or allowing such a person to become a criminal?"
Corporal punishment induces fear and despair in children

Irvin Wolkoff. "Spanked child can become self-loathing adult." The Toronto Star. November 29, 1999: "The message a toddler gets from a slap or spanking is that a parent or other loved and trusted adult is prepared to induce pain and even do physical harm to force unquestioning obedience. That's terrifying to a little kid...However well-intentioned, a slap registers as the shattering of the whole deal between parent and child. Young children are left awash in feelings of fear, shame, rage, hostility, self-destructiveness and betrayal that they can't yet resolve or manage."[7]
Employee Free Choice Act protects unionizing workers from intimidation

Supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act argued that during the weeks (or months) it took to set up the election, management often conducted efforts to dissuade workers from organizing. Many workers reported being threatened with replacement if they ever (as part of a union) chose to strike. Others claimed that employers “predicted” future workplace closures, which under current law was legal so long as they did not “threaten” it. In some cases, employers were even reported to have fired worker activists in an attempt to deter future unionization efforts, knowing it would take years for reinstatement orders to take effect.[2]
EFCA card checking campaigns can be unreliable and illegitimate

James Sherk and Paul Kersey. "How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights". Heritage Foundation. 23 Apr. 2007 - "Organizing Without Majority Support. Card-check campaigns expose workers to union threats and harassment and pressure them to commit after hearing a one-sided union sales pitch. Cards collected under those circumstances often do not reflect employees' free choice. Consequently card-check allows union activists to organize plants where a majority of workers oppose the union.
EFCA gives employees equal access to injunctive relief

"The Employee Free Choice Act Meaningful. Remedies Against Employer Coercion". AFL-CIO - "The Employee Free Choice Act gives employees equal access to injunctive relief. Currently, only employers are entitled to mandatory injunctive relief when their rights are violated. Employees and their unions have no similar remedy. Under current law, the NLRB is required to seek a federal court order to protect employers from certain prohibited conduct by unions. These cases receive top priority, and injunction petitions are filed in federal court within 72 hours of an employer filing a charge against a union. The Employee Free Choice Act mandates similar expedited injunctive relief when workers are fired or other significant violations of employees’ rights occur during organizing efforts or during the period when employees are seeking to negotiate a first contract. The NLRB must file for an injunction promptly after the filing of a meritorious charge, and courts may grant immediate interim relief, including immediate reinstatement of fired employees."
EFCA would force employers to campaign year-round

"The Impact of the Employee Free Choice Act on Employers". Ford and Harrison - "Employers Must Consider Year-Round Campaign. EFCA allows a union to gather signatures without the employer knowing anything about it until the union asks the NLRB for certification. At that point, it is too late for the employer to do anything about it. Facing that scheme, an employer would have to consider seriously communicating with employees throughout the year about the benefits of operating union-free. This not only would be a major distraction for the entire business, but also any discipline would take place in the context of the employer campaigning against the union. The odds of any adverse employment action becoming the subject of an unfair labor practice charge would increase dramatically."
Employee Free Choice Act favors one-sided union pitches

James Sherk and Paul Kersey. "How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights". Heritage Foundation. 23 Apr. 2007 - "Even when union organizers do not threaten workers, card checks often do not reveal workers' free and considered choice about joining a union because workers do not hear both sides' pitches and lack time for reflection. Instead, card checks force workers to choose in a high-pressure sales situation.
EFCA raises penalties on employers violating unionization laws

"US: Support the Employee Free Choice Act". Human Rights Watch. 27 Feb. 2007 - "The Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen the penalties for anti-union discrimination committed during an organizing drive or first-contract negotiation by increasing the amount due victimized workers; providing for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation for willful or repeated illegal acts; and requiring the NLRB to seek injunctive relief if it reasonably believes that an employer “significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees” in the exercise of their rights, as is already required in similar cases against unions. These reforms would not change the basic rules governing workers’ right to organize in the United States. Instead, they would give them teeth, making US employers think twice before violating existing US laws protecting freedom of association."
Employee Free Choice Act responds to worsening conditions for workers

AFL CIO on the Employee Free Choice Act - "It’s Time to Restore Workers’ Freedom to Form Unions. America’s working people are struggling to make ends meet these days and our middle class is disappearing. The best opportunity working people have to get ahead economically is by uniting to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits. Recent research has shown that some 60 million U.S. workers would join a union if they could...But the current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken."
EFCA opens door to intimidation of union holdouts

James Sherk and Paul Kersey. "How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights". Heritage Foundation. 23 Apr. 2007 - "Harassing Holdouts. With card checks, union organizers know who has and has not signed up to join the union, allowing them to repeatedly approach and pressure reluctant workers who declined to sign after the first sales pitch. With this technique, a worker's decision to join the union is binding, while a decision to opt out only means 'not this time.'"
Employee Free Choice Act would not solve alleged employer abuses

James Sherk and Paul Kersey. "How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights". Heritage Foundation. 23 Apr. 2007 - "Unions Allege Abuses and Imbalances. It is difficult to argue for stripping workers of their right to a private vote. To justify putting an end to orga­nizing elections, unions argue that the elections take place "in an inherently and intensely coercive envi­ronment" and are stacked against workers who want to join a union[...] If such abuses were occurring, depriving work­ers of a private vote would do almost nothing to stop them."
EFCA strengthens workers' ability and right to unionize

Employer Free Choice Act. American Rights at Work - "The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to form a union through “majority sign-up.” If workers know they want a union, we should have laws that let them have it. The Employee Free Choice Act would require an employer to recognize its employees’ union when a majority has signed union authorization cards. Under current law, management can refuse to recognize a union even when 100 percent of employees have signed authorization cards. After a majority of workers have signed cards, an employer can still call for a separate election. Under the current system, then, the employer gets to decide whether a separate election is necessary. The Employee Free Choice Act would give this choice to the workers. Read more about majority sign-up."
EFCA allows employers or employees to seek negotiation mediation

Employer Free Choice Act. American Rights at Work - "Allow employers or employees to request mediation if they’re unable to negotiate a first contract. Under current law, anti-union employers often drag workers through lengthy negotiations by delaying bargaining sessions, withholding relevant information, and putting forth bogus proposals. Even though these tactics are illegal, there are no effective deterrents to prevent “surface bargaining.” The Employee Free Choice Act will strengthen workers’ ability to achieve a first contract within a reasonable period of time. Read more about mediation & arbitration."
EFCA is biased toward increasing unions and their power

Stephen Cabot. "Employee Free Choice Act Puts A Target On The Back Of Manufacturers". Industry Weekly. 16 Oct. 2008 - "While the AFL-CIO and other unions support Kennedy's proposal to do away with secret ballot elections, they do favor secret ballot elections when it comes to decertifying a union, which is a procedure that permits workers to decide if they want to continue being represented by a union. In the case of decertifications, the unions feel that management might intimidate union members to throw out the union and so there should be secret elections. This lack of logical consistency points to the real union agenda, which is to increase membership, while discouraging decertifications.
Employers rarely violate the law during union organizing campaigns

James Sherk and Paul Kersey. "How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights". Heritage Foundation. 23 Apr. 2007 - "the unions' allegations are either factually false or highly misleading. The facts show that employers rarely violate the law in orga­nizing drives and that, if anything, NLRB election procedures favor unions: Unions win 61 percent of all organizing elections."
EFCA wrongly imposes binding arbitration on companies

Force flawed binding arbitration: The EFCA would require that a binding arbitration be required in the event that union and employer negotiations reached an impasse. Independent arbitrators, writers from the Heritage Foundation argued, could be a very useful tool for resolving disputes, however, binding arbitration leaves unions and employers at the unpredictable whims of an arbitration panel, "leaving management and workers to deal with the consequences."
Unions are dwindling because few workers care to join

James Sherk and Paul Kersey. "How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers' Rights". Heritage Foundation. 23 Apr. 2007 - "Few Workers Want to Organize. Union activ­ists contend that the low level of unionization in the United States proves that elections do not reflect workers' free choice. They argue that most Ameri­can workers actually want to join a union. They back this up with polling numbers showing that 53 percent of non-union workers, or 57 million work­ers, would like to belong to a union. However those numbers are highly suspect. The AFL-CIO commissioned the poll. Peter Hart, a Dem­ocratic pollster, conducted it. The poll itself remains unpublished, and the AFL-CIO has not revealed the questions or polling methodologies used. Publicly publishedpolls conducted by nonparti­san pollsters show the opposite: Relatively few non-union workers want general representation. Zogby polling shows that, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, non-union workers do not want to belong to a labor union.[49] Because a union must win the support of a majority of a company's workers to win recognition, the fact that relatively few workers belong to a union is not surprising."
Opposition to EFCA is driven by corporate interests

Bob Bussel, director of the Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon. "Why the Employee Free Choice Act Is Good for America". - "The opposition to this legislation comes from the usual suspects and is thoroughly predictable. Employers and their well-funded ideological allies know that a stronger union movement means they will have to negotiate with workers rather than dictate to them. They also understand that a rejuvenated union movement would press politically for a fairer distribution of social and economic resources, insist that government play a larger role in regulating corporate behavior, and argue that market considerations should not be the sole determinant of public policy."