Corporal Punishment of Children Should be Illegal

My opponent states, "I am arguing for the right of parents to cause pain to children." And if that is the case you're arguing, once again I say that you cannot simply argue for the smallest possible outcome (light, gentle spanking occasionally for only really bad children). The argument is 'should parents cause physical pain to their children.' Rebuttals In answer to my argument, my opponent says, "Why not shoot the very naughty kid? Because a less harmful action, such as a slap to the buttocks, would be sufficient to do the job." If that is the logical path to determining right from wrong, then the case is settled. Why not shoot the kid? Because a less harmful action (spanking) is sufficient. Why not spank the kid? Because a less harmful action (grounding) is sufficient. So don't shoot the kid, don't spank the kid, take the mildest form of punishment possible and the mildest form is not physical violence by any accounts. (I am not saying this is true. I am simply stating my opponent's reasoning lends to this conclusion.) My opponent says, A slap to the buttocks protects them in that it prevents them from getting themselves killed in the future, whilst a gunshot wound or knife cut, at best, puts them in more danger. I disagree. A spanking also has the potential of putting a child in danger by causing flesh tearing, bruising and physical pain. A knife wound slit across skin can have a similar effect without long-lasting consequences. As disciplinary measures they'll both get the same point across; don't do this or you'll be physically punished. And my opponent's assertion that a slap to the buttocks protects a child from death is unfounded. There are other methods of teaching a kid not to run into the street. My same argument is that a gunshot would also teach the child not to run into the street, but it isn't an appropriate method of communication. Also my opponent states that "It's because the punishment is corrective - meaning that children can learn from it - that we allow it to happen to them. Because you cannot engage them mentally or rationally, assuming they have not yet developed the capacity for this, the only available option is physically." A child can also learn from starvation, but that doesn't mean we should allow it to happen to them. And just because they can be reasoned with in one sense (not all senses) the only available option is not physical violence. I heartily contest this baseless assertion. I'd contend that one could use other forms of negative reinforcement. A stern voice, disapproving tone, timeouts, grounding, taking away toys, not allowing to have fun. Are all forms of punishment that are alternatives to physical violence. I agree that "It's important for parents to be allowed to use all corrective tools that do not harm the child." One could make this argument. But I am already saying that 'spanking' does harm the child by making them more aggressive (Shown in the study above) making the child prone to violence, emotionally debilitating the child and making them a harm to society. My opponent debates then that not ALL spanking is good (he's conceded that at least some spanking is bad) so he states that very light, minimal spanking on occasion won't cause these harms. I would agree. I'd also agree that (like I said before) occasionally forgetting to feed your child fruit with his meals doesn't cause everlasting damage, because it is a minor harm that can be forgiven. But it is a harm all the same and it is when that negligible behavior turns to negligence that you have child abuse. By making spanking illegal, (in the same way that negligence is illegal) one would make sure that a child isn't open to a scenario where a parent can abuse them or can spank them too often, or too hard or cause too much damage. (Light spanking even isn't a good model, because it still teaches the child violence.) I did understand his point about Sweden. And I pointed out that making 'spanking illegal' was not the reason those kids went to foster care. Parents disobeying the law was the reasons those kids went to foster care. They were not allowed to spank, but did it anyway for their own selfish reasons or simply out of a negative habit. That is the parent's fault, not the child's and not the legal system's. Saying, that they suffered less abuse one place than another, doesn't mean that the first part should be legalized. Take one of those kids in foster care for example. Let's say they move from home A to home B. In home A they were beaten on occasion. In home B they were sexually abused and beaten every day. Just because Home B was worse than Home A, doesn't mean home A should be considered 'good.' And my opponent is arguing once again about the effect of the legal system. If the punishment given is too severe, that is a problem in the courts. A parent can be nominally fined, warned, or put under house arrest for various offenses. A parent can be imprisoned for a night or two days. Repeat offenders can suffer more serious consequences. In the end, I am not writing legislation, I am simply saying that because in a single case-study the courts aren't effectively implementing the law, doesn't mean that the law should be thrown out altogether. Defense My opponent states, "Children thus recognise that certain actions are context, subject and person relative in terms of their morality" He also says that children have the mental ability to determine the difference between multiple scenarios. Only moments ago in his debate he was arguing that, "Because you cannot engage them mentally or rationally." Now he is attributing the reasoning skills of a much older person with that of a child, but then switching the case study when it suits his debate. I disagree with this tactic. Either the child is mentally capable and can be rational in understanding about their roles and therefore can be rational about punishment and being talked to or shown by examples, or else the child isn't. In either case one of my opponent's arguments comes up short. Either the child is rational and spanking shouldn't be allowed because you can reason with them. Or the child isn't rational, and so they don't differentiate between a parent and a child's role in hitting someone or driving. (I am not stating this as my view, only as a contradiction of my opponent's.) My opponent is wrong is saying I said light smacks were 'ok.' I said light smacks can be forgiven or don't have as harmful an effect. In the same way punching someone on the jaw or getting in a fight with a friend can be okay, and won't be prosecuted by law. Both cases these can even draw people closer together after altercation, but they are still considered illegal and should not become common practice. In this paragraph my opponent is once again supporting 'pain' as a corrective tool. Violence sometimes is used simply to cause pain without lasting injury. (Torture for instance.) Just because the intention is pain not injury, doesn't make the violent act any more acceptable. Thirdly, I agree with my opponent. All harsh corporal punishment should be banned. He says that if you water it down it should be allowed, I say just because something is lesser of a greater evil, doesn't make it good. (Add flour to cocaine and you have a less potent substance, but it is still cocaine.) I'd say allowing light corporal punishment allows for harsh corporal punishment. (Who is to determine which is which? Will some social worker stand in the house while the punishment is administered.) And in either case I still argue violence teaches violence and even if you only have very light smacking once in a while, it is still physical violence. (Could say, I only lightly slapped my sister on the wrist. I wasn't violent!) I agree with my opponent's final statement mostly. I disagree with his conclusion. I think spanking, of any degree or speed, is poor parenting and should be illegal--though not always prosecuted.