Corporal Punishment of Children Should be Illegal

The argument is not whether parents should be allowed to inflict any physical pain to their children. This argument is over whether all physical pain should be banned, no matter how serious, or whether just the serious kind should be banned that actually makes kids violent and aggressive, and hurts them for life. My opponent has no issue with causing emotional pain to a child, such as from taking away a loved toy, or causing isolation and a feeling of being unwanted to the child, such as through time out. In fact, he's advocated these things as punishment. However, he'd like to see good parents who give their children a light slap when they've been exceptionally naughty thrown in prison and fined, vindicating the child's naughty behaviour, removing them from their authority figures, and generally making other parents more reluctant to disciplining their children. That children become naughtier under his model is that part of the Sweden point he missed.My caseIf grounding was a sufficient alternative, a good parent may choose to do it. The problem is that for more serious offences, it often isn't. What grounding teaches a child is that the parent doesn't want to be around the child when they do a certain behaviour, which encourages them to do it when the parent isn't looking. We need to bear in mind the context I set the right at the beginning. A child has caused massive damage. I don't think spanking is massively damaging when done appropriately, but it conveys a much more serious message, that a child will get hurt if they do that again. That's an important message because it's true - they will get hurt if they do something really bad again, such as drown while playing unsupervised by the pool. Bear in mind also my explanation for why children learn, and the need for the right kind of reinforcement.My opponent says that spanking is worse than getting a knife wound in terms of injury to the child. If we were comparing excessive spanking against a light knife wound, that might be somewhat true. However, light spanking can still produce temporary physical pain without any real damage being done to the child's body. While I'm all in favor of banning abusive punishments, I and my opponent differ in that I don't think moderated, light spanking is abusive.I have already agreed that other alternatives can be used that seek to cause emotional pain instead. Most parents would use these alternatives instead. Most parents would do the same with positive reinforcement, such as saying "well done" being more common than giving lollypops. However, parents need to have all of the various good options open to them. Spanking is obviously a serious option, but since it doesn't really damage a child and it teaches them a valuable lesson it must be allowed.My opponent has conceeded this entire case. He agrees mild, occassional spanking does not cause harms, and does cause learning, therefore it ought to be "forgiven" (ie, not made illegal - if it can be forgiven, why prosecute parents over using it?) Mild, occassional spanking is a form of corporal punishment. Obviously we both agree that child abuse should be banned. Looking at hot women may cause men to want to take the woman's clothes off, but that's no reason to ban either men or hot women as well. In the same way, just because mild, occassional spanking could possibly lead to child abuse (although there is no evidence for this) doesn't mean we should ban it or the parents that administer it.My opponent conceeds also that the state can be worse than the parents with the Sweden case, saying that they are worse than the parents. While he contests whether a parent who spanks their children lightly is "good", since he must accept there is a harm in the state dictating what is good and bad parenting, since their own "parenting" is objectively worse. Control must remain with those who know best, and in this instance that party is the parents. Once again, my opponent has missed that this also relates to the children's outcomes and future. We make laws because they fit with our vision of how society should be - so if we don't think society should be aggressive, and this law turns many children from loving parents to aggressive, abused maniacs, then we should not have this law.RebuttalI've weaved most of my rebuttal into my case, and my opponent repeats the same thing several times when he is focusing on his case. Therefore this is just the remaining stuff we dealt with in the debate.My opponent says it's a contradiction to say a child's capacity to learn is limited and that they have learnt the difference between themselves and their parents. Knowing that you're not the only independant actor in the world isn't a hard thing to learn. That's why you can't grab food on demand, for instance, but only when something "else" grabs it for you. I've already told you that children learn this at age one, but only learn to rationalise around the age of six. During that five-year window, physical reinforcement is required for teaching.Next my opponent says light smacks can be forgiven. The difference between punching your friend and teaching a child a lesson is that for a child, there is little alternative. Reasoning is always ideal, like I said, and you can reason with your friend. However, you cannot reason with a 3 year old. They have not learnt to reason yet.Lastly, it's not difficult to determine what is child abuse and what is light, moderated corporal punishment. Appropriate corporal punishment will not leave the child with any serious injury. Beyond that, we already trust the state to monitor child abuse, even where there is very little way of knowing, such as sexual abuse. "Light slaps on the wrist", to use my opponent's example, should never cause a dislocated wrist.-If it's not worth prosecuting, it's not worth making illegal. It's clear that my opponent has one view of good parenting and many parents have another, but when you look at the objective evidence, you cannot say that their style of parenting - involving a small and measured amount of corporal punishment - is wrong. I stand for the right of these parents to not be labelled law-breakers. Light corporal punishment is a legitimate way of teaching children a lesson. In fact, for some offences, it is the only appropriate way.