My 99th Debate: Kids and Corporal Punishment

I will now lay out my case, but after I briefly discuss the resolution and burdens in this debate. THE RESOLUTIONLet's break down the resolution before getting in to my arguments. The phrase "on balance" implies that the winner should be determined after a preponderance of the evidence. If we imagined the debate as a scale, and our arguments as weights, whichever side has more weight is the side deserving of the vote. However, since Pro has 100% of the burden of proof, as per Rule number 1, if the scale is roughly even at the end of the debate, you must vote Con. The fact that Pro has the BOP means that, in non-metaphorical terms, if Pro hasn't proven her case, even if you don't think I proved mine, you still have to vote Con. Finally, there is a specific way the benefits of corporal punishment should be assess. The resolution is not talking about benefits to society, to parents, to schoolteachers, etc. , but rather it is specifically talking about benefits "for the child. " Only benefits that impact back to the child are relevant, and only these arguments weigh on our hypothetical scale. The resolution also does not specify any specific type of corporal punishment that Pro must defend, therefore, to defend only certain types of corporal punishment would fail to defend the full scope of the ground Pro needs to cover. While I don't expect Pro to defend clear instances of abuse, Pro must still defend those acts which may to some seem abusive, but which to other, reasonable people, do not. With these understandings in mind, we can move on to my arguments. MY ARGUMENTSIn a meta-analysis of 88 studies, covering 62 years of data, psychologist Elizabeth T. Gershoff, PhD, "looked for associations between parental use of corporal punishment and 11 child behaviors and experiences, including several in childhood (immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of relationship with parent, and physical abuse from that parent), three in both childhood and adulthood (mental health, aggression, and criminal or antisocial behavior) and one in adulthood alone (abuse of own children or spouse). " [1] Her analysis found that there were strong links between all of these 11 points and corporal punishment, and that "[t]en of the associations were negative such as with increased child aggression and antisocial behavior. The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child. " [1] Gershoff found an especially strong link between the use of corporal punishment and parental abuse of the child. She cautioned that this evidenced a strong risk that corporal punishment could easily and "by its nature can escalate into physical maltreatment. " [1]Gershoff cites a growing body of data surrounding corporal punishment which notes that, "[f]or one, corporal punishment on its own does not teach children right from wrong. Secondly, although it makes children afraid to disobey when parents are present, when parents are not present to administer the punishment those same children will misbehave. In commentary published along with the Gershoff study, George W. Holden, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, writes that Gershoff's findings 'reflect the growing body of evidence indicating that corporal punishment does no good and may even cause harm. '" [1]In a separate study, involving some 2,500 children, researchers found that "who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were much more likely to be aggressive by age 5. " [2] This study was the first of its kind "to control for a host of issues affecting the mother, such as depression, alcohol and drug use, spousal abuse and even whether she considered abortion while pregnant with the child. " [2] Even after controlling for these variables, as well as for natural aggression in the children, the study found a 50% greater likelihood of aggression by age 5 in children who were spanked more frequently. [2] My sources posits that "the reason for this may be that spanking sets up a loop of bad behavior. Corporal punishment instills fear rather than understanding. Even if children stop tantrums when spanked, that doesn't mean they get why they shouldn't have been acting up in the first place. What's more, spanking sets a bad example, teaching children that aggressive behavior is a solution to their parents' problems. " [2] "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not endorse spanking under any circumstance. It's a form of punishment that becomes less effective with repeated use, according to the AAP; it also makes discipline more difficult as the child outgrows it. " [2]Another piece of research observes a similar effect as the first two I've quoted. "Based on interviews with the mothers of about 3,000 children, researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire found that corporal punishment is counterproductive, resulting in more antisocial behavior by children in later years. Parents may not see this 'boomerang' effect because it happens over weeks or months. " [3] "Researchers analyzed survey data from 807 mothers of children ages 6 to 9. .. They compared levels of antisocial behavior among spanked and unspanked children over that interval. The more spanking a child received at the beginning of the study, the higher level of antisocial behavior at the end, according to the researchers. The study found that the higher levels of antisocial behavior were independent of other traits that could affect that behavior, such as a family's socioeconomic status and the amount of support parents give their children. " [3]"There is also MRI evidence that children treated with harsh corporal punishment have reduced gray matter when aged 18–25 in their prefrontal lobe. Such research also found that these reductions in gray matter linked to reduced performance IQ. " [4]UNICEF notes that, regarding children, "[corporal punishment] lowers their self-esteem, teaching them poor self-control and promoting negative expectations of themselves. It teaches them to be victims. There is a broadly held belief that people who are submitted to corporal punishment are made stronger by it; it 'prepares them for life. ' Today we know that corporal punishment doesn't make people stronger; rather it makes them more prone to becoming repeat victims. It interferes with the learning process and with their intellectual, sensory and emotional development. It discourages the use of reasoning. By precluding dialogue and reflection, it hampers the capacity to understand the relationship between behavior and its consequences. It makes children feel lonely, sad and abandoned. It promotes a negative view of other people and of society as a threatening place. It creates barriers that impede parent-child communication and damages the emotional links established between them. It stimulates anger and a desire to run away from home. Violence begets violence. It teaches that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems. Children who have been submitted to corporal punishment may manifest difficulties with social integration. It doesn't teach children to cooperate with authority; it teaches them to comply with the rules or to infringe them. Children can suffer from accidental physical injuries. When someone hits a child, the situation can get out of hand and result in more harm than expected. " [5]Even more studies report similar findings regarding corporal punishment. The National Association of Social Workers conducted research that found "a link between physical punishment and several negative developmental outcomes for children: physical injury, increased aggression, antisocial behavior, poorer adult adjustment, and greater tolerance of violence. ” [6] Other researchers have discovered that "the 25 percent of university students who ranked highest on a corporal punishment scale insisted on sex without a condom, compared with the 12.5 percent of university students who scored lowest on the scale. Another: 75 percent of college students who'd been spanked a lot said they were sexually aroused by masochistic sex, compared with 40 percent of students who were never spanked. " [7]So, to sum all of this up, I will quotes the APSA, which writes, "Spanking is a euphemism for hitting. One is not permitted to hit one's spouse or a stranger; such actions are defined as the crime of assault. Nor should one be permitted to hit a small and more vulnerable child. Hitting a child elicits precisely the feelings one does not want to generate in a child: distress, anger, fear, shame, and disgust. " [8] Thus, I can only conclude that corporal punishment is indeed not beneficial for the child, and must urge a ballot in negation of today's resolution. Thank you, and thanks to Garbanza. I hand over the floor to Pro. .. SOURCES1 - . http://www.apa.org...2 - . http://content.time.com...3 - . http://www.cnn.com...4 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . http://www.unicef.org... 6 - . http://babyresearch.blogspot.com...7 - . http://www.newsweek.com...8 - . http://www.apsa.org...