Spanking children is a necessity.

PRELIMINARIES To Pro: I didn't intend my language to come across as difficult or intentionally flowery/technical in any way. I hope that wasn't the impression I gave, and I'll be making an effort from now on to be as straightforward as possible. Also, no worries about the work, luckily I have the luxury of being a full time student. :-) RECAPPING MY ARGUMENTSRecall the challenge I set for Pro in the end of my last post: It's NOT ENOUGH to show that spanking has some good benefits (which it undoubtedly may have). Pro needs to show firstly that spanking is the only way to achieve the good benefits in question, and secondly Pro needs to show that spanking has no disproportionately bad side-consequences. As I have argued however, there are very strong reasons to think this is not the case!(I) Empirical evidence shows us that spanking is no more successful than other non-violent methods of discipline, such as using reward systems not to spoil children but rather to encourage disciplined behaviour. I cited two peer-reviewed empirical studies in support of this claim, Straus (2005) as well as Larzelere, Schneider, Larson and Pike (1996). Has Pro given us any reason to reject this claim? None. Pro simply asserts in reply: "NO other punishment is proved to work, where a spanking has been proven to work." But the empirical studies I cited precisely claim to prove this! So unless Pro can cast doubt on these empirical studies, his assertion is absolutely unfounded.(II) Empirical evidence shows us that spanking has wide-ranging and disproportionately damaging consequences on children. Again, I cited an empirical study, Gershoff (2002). According to Gershoff, spanking (i) increases the likelihood of decreased moral awareness and internalisation in children that carries on into adulthood; (ii) decreases the quality of the relationship between parent and child; and (iii) increased anti-social and delinquent behaviour in children. See my previous post for the reasoning I offered to connect spanking with these consequences.Again, has Pro given us any reason to reject this claim? Again, none. Pro says: "spanking a child may have a small percent change in the mental health where grounding them may teach them they can get off easy in the real world". But this is the same point Pro made earlier. He is basically saying that 'grounding' kids will teach a bad lesson, whereas spanking won't. However Pro has not considered the possibility of disciplinary methods other than grounding: for example, using a reward system as I mentioned earlier. And in any case, Pro's claim has been asserted with absolutely no evidence. As Christopher hitchens is fond of saying: "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" [1]. We must demand evidence from Pro if we want to believe his claims.(III)There seems to be no reason to think that if we allow spanking, we also shouldn't allow gradually stronger and stronger forms of violence against children. This is a 'slippery-slope' argument, but not all slippery-slope arguments are necessarily bad. (If you want evidence for this, see the Wikipedia entry on slippery slope arguments). To be honest, I don't think this third point of mine is very strong at all. But I leave it to Pro to debunk my point, if he so chooses.THE CASE AGAINST SPANKING STANDS UNREFUTEDIn conclusion, I must say that there is very strong reason for us to think that spanking is wholly unnecessary, in light of the points above. Before entering this debate I did not actually know about all the empirical evidence revealing these facts about spanking. Now that I do, my opinion is much firmer. I urge you all to go Con on this debate!REFERENCES / CITATIONS[1] This is in fact not an original saying of Hitchens', but a popular axiom of the great medieval Scholastic philosophers. *For full citations of other sources quoted in this post, cf. my previous post.