BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it will improve the lives of those who are bullied

Often when nothing is done about bullying it is actually the teachers being ignorant to the goings-on of the playground. The teacher could just as easily with that power turn around and strike the bullied child- say for example if they are from a bad background who are not liked by the teacher, yet still bullied by their peers. Having authority would not necessarily make teachers do the right thing. Often with the authority that they possess now, teachers fail to combat bullying- giving them more will not necessarily solve the issue. Actually, when teachers hit, it actually lets the child think that violence is okay and than they take it out on others.
harms children with genuine behavioural disorders or other disabilities

As a child with Asperger's I did a lot of things that were defined as bad behaviour because of panic attacks, repeated bullying or desperation to remove something from the classroom that was against my personal rules/routine. there was no way physical punishment would have worked, i just wouldn't have relented, i would have ended up seriously injured, and i would have been fine if i had been left to work in a room on my own. this would be OK if teachers could actually tell the difference between badly behaved children and children with conditions that can be dealt with, but in my experience they can't, and often aren't sympathetic anyway.
there has been an increase in crime

It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime (1). (1)http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/digest4/chapter1.pdf Additionally, the U.K.'s banning of corporal punishment is not attached to a propaganda website called nospanking.com and portrays a more convincing argument for reintroducing corporal punishment since it clearly documents crime statistics before and after the abolition of corporal punishment in schools. On the other hand, the opposing argument contradicts itself. How can you refute that the abolition of corporal punishment has not led to an increase in crime because of varying factors when the case that you cite to support your argument is so biased and overlooks a large number of factors- such as poverty, drop outs, consistent use of paddling, perceived fairness of paddling, credible or qualified teachers, etc. How can you realistically argue against a corporal punishment that has successfully been used for thousands of years in home and without to discipline children? It's worked for all this time and managed to create fairly decent, responsible human beings without traumatizing them. Pro-Spanking Research: A study published in the Akron Law Review in 2009 examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime. For example, in Sweden “enlightened” parenting seems to have produced increased violence later. “Swedish teen violence skyrocketed in the early 1990s, when children that had grown up entirely under the spanking ban first became teenagers,” Fuller noted. “Preadolescents and teenagers under fifteen started becoming even more violent toward their peers. By 1994, the number of youth criminal assaults had increased by six times the 1984 rate.” ... Margaret Gunnoe in 1997 published work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression, but it went largely unnoticed by the media because it contradicted mainstream opinion. Of course, we all know that aggression is often the main culprit in violent crime. ... Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers. This supports the view that banning spanking would lead to an increase in crime. http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669
It increases the rate of crime and violence.

This argument lacks statistical backing. There is a reason for this. Because the statistics systematically show that after corporal punishment was made illegal, crime increased, by 67%. The statistics are firmly in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment. In late 2009, American psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe published a report that found that corporal punishment is good for kids- although since she was going against the grain of popular psychology most journals would not publish it. Nonetheless, her research was not meant to serve as a green light for parents to spank their children, but rather a red light for those groups who want corporal punishment banned. Here are some articles describing her findings: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/nurture-shock/2009/12/30/some-kids-are-never-spanked-do-they-turn-out-better.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html
it will improve the lives of those who are bullied

There is a real feeling amongst those who are bullied that telling the teacher will worsen the problem, not make it better. Victims of bullying fear repercussions. However, if there was a system of corporal punishment behind the teachers, then something could be done which would scare the bullies out of their bullying ways. This would open bully victims up as they would discuss bullying issues with teachers knowing that something definitive could be done. If a child thinks it's okay to hit because a teacher or adult uses corporal punishment then that child is slow and fails to realize the purpose and meaning behind such an action. Besides a good and effective teacher is not going to use corporal punishment all the time, but as a last resort when all else fails. A threat is no good unless there is some fearful truth behind it. Also, teachers are only ignorant to bullying matters because they know they cannot realistically do much to stop it. So in effect, bullying has gotten a lot meaner.
If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways.

The general standard of student behaviour and test results in many schools has declined since the state banned corporal punishments. Many teachers (in Britain) believe that is because corporal punishment was an efficient way of dealing with misbehaving students. Corporal punishment should be an option available to teachers – but not the only option and not one to be used all the time. A ban on corporal punishment would simply takes away from teachers a very effective disciplining method.
The administration of corporal punishment made us grow up to become responsible citizen.

Breaking a rule at school resulted in corporal punishment being administered. We were caned, and that was that. No offence was either intended or taken. So, we learned to respect the rules, customs and norms of our society. Kids are not going to go up against their parents after being subjugated to corporal punishment. Also, it is perfectly natural for kids to become rebellious when they reach a certain age. The buck stops when that kid has reached that age and has learned nothing. When that adolescent gets big enough to try and go up against his/her parents- then that child is no longer a child and needs to leave the protection and shelter of his parents and make his own.
there is a lack of father figues in the home

The education system cannot be a complete substitute for poor parenting, though it has a part to play. Schools may complete social instruction, but what we see now is a lack of even it's most fundamental aspects, and work on repairing this must start in the home, where children learn by example from their parents. p.s. that is also sexist - there is no reason a woman cannot take the role of the father figure.
it can lead to death

Causing death by beating is illegal regardless of whether it is 'punishment'. Technically, anything can lead to death if used in excession. This isnt much of a valid point. If someone ate too much yoghurt they would die, If someone were to run and run for ages without sleep or eating or stopping they would die. Id someone were to sit there doing nothing, absolutely nothing, they would die. This isn't much or an argument. Corporal punishment is not abuse and will not lead to death. Abuse, however will lead to death. If you have crossed the line you will definitely know because there is a brief time limit to all corporal punishment, and there is really one sort of instrument that can be used (which can not kill), and is applied to a limited amount of areas. Neither of these things can kill a child when used together. These things also won't leave bruises or broken ribs. Of course, marks may be left but they usually fade with no bruising in a day or so.
It increases the rate of crime and violence.

Corporal punishment can be associated with higher rates of aggression, more substance abuse and an increased risk of crime and violence as many victims of corporal punishment tend to lash out and repeat this abuse as they don't know any better. In other words, it teaches children to use physical violence. The fact that corporal punishment increases crime and violence has been supported by the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) which has stated that "the more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse and the more marital conflict they experience as adults." Hence, corporal punishment not only starts a vicious circle of violence but also affects the childs life and wellbeing once they become an adult. The government needs to work towards a less violent society, not increasing the amount of violence in society by reintroducing one of its founders.
If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways.

If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways. Hitting them is just used as the easy way out. In Germany, where it is illegal for both parents and teachers to hit a child, surveys of 12-18 year-olds show a steep decline in abuse. In 1992, 3 out of 10 children reported being beaten to the point of bruising; ten years later, the proportion was 3 in 100. Children reported a rise in other disciplining measures, like television bans and cutting their pocket money.
old corp

Old Corp frustrated and afraid i grow our society in decline discipline, personal responsibility only few adhere to how far must the pendulum swing is this when, enough is enough! learn we must from past misfortunes our elders abused and taken for, those locked rooms, monsters behind unchecked horrors lived, compassion grow-ed, forced upon; Justly! the Corporal dishonourably discharged now! today------------------------------ legacy apparent our youth growing without the Corporals watchful eye- time outs, detention stars to earn... all to worry bout! ! ! much we have learnt evidence mounting... remember or imagine for those who never felt, the Corporals hovering hand on watch; lol...one weighed up quick smart if sacrifice was worth, old Corps loving touch- and we did, at that young age decide to take 'one' for a noble course consequence learned, schooled was i steered by our negligence/wisdom! our impressionable youth out of balance- drowning em in compassion we've got it ass bout before grow-ed, before 'it' earned see our youth-lost initiated wanting self inflicted search, a cry for help mans hammerer of fate hovering? too late, when crashes short life lost knowing no consequences short life lost...when schooled on streets long life...serving, consequence learned the Pendulum out of control risking destruction come!!! let us stand up! let us unite- rein list the Corporal... reinvent the old bastard... our future begs! learn we must, modern twist for age old teach Utopia do we live? Jails still exist, war still wages are we so arrogrant... stop preaching, they have to make their own mistakes we must show wisdom to aid in this! give them the tools for this journey.. RPL our children/invest in the future when coming of age, when the chemicals hit, natural or manmade Old Corp's training just might save that youth from the daily horrors/ challenges of our modern society civilised or uncivilised please define! at a loss i am...
there is a lack of father figues in the home

In the family, there once was a strong male figure that children would fear. However, with the increase in single parent families, often consisting of a mother, that figure has gone. Children fear nothing these days and the reintroduction of corporal punishment would give them some fear and this would curb disruptive behaviour in the classroom. A woman cannot realistically be both mother and father no matter how hard she may try. Children also realize this and a lot of their acting out is because they feel neglected by their fathers. It is not sexist to consider the importance both sets of parents play in a child's development. Just like a father cannot be a mother to his kids neither can you expect a mother to be a father to her kids. Catering to one role is hard enough as it is.
The Bible Nonsense

The existence of the Abrahamic God is as probable as the existence of any other mythical creature, no different to other Gods such as Zeus, Dionossys, Mithra or Vishnu. Time and time again over the course of history the religious authorities have had to admit being wrong when science has proved their beliefs incorrect. Following the Bible, from Adam and Eve, to Noah, to King Jacob, we can calculate that the book claims our planet to be approxiametely 6,000 years old. Science has proved that our planet is in fact 4,5 billion years old. So if the bible gets it wrong from the very first page, why credit it with any factual events? In the old testamente it is claimed that the Pharaoh had couple of thousand jews incarcerated, and when the self proclaimed god refused to obey Moses classical line "Let my people go!", the "real" God was so infuriated that he cast a ten day spell on Egypt, amongst which were * All water in Egypt turn to blood so all the fish died * Insects attack Egypt * Darkness for three days * First born egyptian child dies (that's a mercyfull god) First of all, there is NO, NONE, ZERO archeological or historical evidence of any jews incarcarated in Egypt at that time, or even that a guy named Moses ever existed. But what really confuses me is this: If God went through those lenghts for couple of thousand jews, where was he when SIX MILLION of them were being gassed to death by the Third Reich??? In terms of factuality and science, the Bible is not more worth than the recycled paper it is written on. It's an article of faith, not to be taken literally. There are more inconsitensies in the bible than in an Alien Abduction Conspiracy Theory. Yet people who believe in it, like to claim it for a factual scripture. The belief in the Bible doesn't make any one a good person. Christians 150 years ago were pro slavery, but today most of them are against it. Both sides used the Bible as a reference. Has the word of God changed over this period? Well, no! People have just evolved and become more aware and empathetic. The Bible is filled with moronic claims like the examples given above, the list just goes on and on. So my question is, from a moral/scientificial/historical aspect, what is the point of the bible?
God is an idealised human authority figure

God is described as having human characteristics - emotions such as love, motives such as creating and protecting something, characteristics such as power and benevolence - but at its very extreme, having infinite power, perfect benevolence etc. He is an expression of what we want in a perfect authority figure and an ideal parent. He is just wishful thinking. An actual higher entity who is a) not human and b) capable of such acts would be nothing like us. We wouldn't be able to understand them at all, they'd be so alien to us.
God displays humanistic characteristics that prove that he is neither all powerful or all knowing, therefore making him human or non-existant

We know that god is a man made construct because even it, he, she is victim to the bias of human emotions. Why does god NEED us to worship him/her/it? If god was a superior being, he would not be victim to problems caused by humanism. Therefore, we know that he is a man made construct because god IS a victim of humanism. the need for us to worship him and god's need for: recoginition, acceptance, love. Further more, why does god, why did god get angry? If god truly exists, he would be all powerful and knowing. This in of its self would prevent god from acting or thinking like a human being, with emotions. But because god displays characteristics of man, we can categorize god as a man made construct. Secondly, what does god look like? Look to EVERY religion, and you will see man made constructs that are victims to the criteria of man's racism, sexism and culture. In greek mythology or norse mythology, why are the all powerful dieities men? why is god often described as a man, or why are all of the most important and powerful gods placed in the bodies of Men? In almost every culture, women play a secondary role is society, and even in western culture and religion this remains true. God, if he existed, would have told his first followers that he was an 'IT' not man, not women. If god truly existed, god and his followers would know that god is not even in the human form. YET, looking at all the hymns, paintings and writings, what do they refer to god as? he. Not she, because every religion and christianity is no exception, is victim to sexism. If god existed, he would not have been victim to sexism by any avenue. But because he has, it shows that he is neither all powerful or all knowing. As he should have had the knowledge to prevent this, as well as the ability. If god existed, he would not be victim to any type of humanism. Being all powerful and knowing WOULD prevent this. But because he displays HUMAN characteristics like angry, pride, need for acceptance, and apperance. So......this proves that he is not all powerful and knowing = Not god. which then leaves the final conculsion that he doesnt exist because he IS a man made construct.
God is just the reflex of human primitive cognitive and emotinal needs

God is a man made construct. Its the result of our incapacity to envision a meaning for our limited lifespan other than to perpetuate itself in another realm of time and space. It is also the result of indoctrination. Without the institucionalized indoctrination of the churches, the idea of a personal god that answers to prayers would be long gone. This indoctrination is reinforced by a natural human need "to belong". This last point explains why the belief in a personal god and the burgeoning birth of new sects and cults is much more prolific in poor areas or under assisted communities. It is not emotionally rewarding to think that there is no one but ourselves and our own conscience to care for us, but the fact that this emotional reward is real speaks nothing about the veracity of GOD!
Limitations of human understanding

Just because we can't directly percieve something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just as we were once oblivious to the fact that electromagnetic fields exist, as do air molecules, as do the moons of Jupiter - we could be oblivious to a whole medley of things that are not immediately perceptible to human senses. Humans just can't have complete and perfect knowledge of things existing. This is due to our limitations. Dogs have a heigtened sense of smell and eagles have a heightened sense of vision - yet these species are lacking in other faculties such as the intelligence of humans; similarly humans are lacking in the abilites that they have. This shows that we are limited by our senses and can't fathom the existence of things outside our sphere of sense perception. Therefore, it is possible that God exists without us being able to 'see' him.
The idea of 'creation'

A computer, a watch, a table, a pencil, a building - what do they all have in common? They have all been created, planned by the human mind and designed by the hands. Similarly, we can argue that every object that exists has been made, built, fashioned by a great designer. If humans can make robots, and robots can make other objects by the command of the human, why is it impossible to consider the possibility that humans were also created, and are living their lives due to their Creator's wish? A human designs a car that can only function with the presence of fuel - and he regularly provides it with that. Similarly, this Designer of men has not only created men, but has provided plenty of resources for food on Earth, so that his creation will nourish itself and continue to live.
Consequences

Every action has a consequence. Every action IS a consequence of a prior act. Thus, scientists have sought to determine our roots, the origins of the Universe, the 'IT' that started all of this. If we accept the rational occurence of action and reaction, and try to conclude that there is a Source that nudged the first domino piece of physical events; naturally the question will be brought up - who created God? Logically, there has to be a beginning that is devoid of any beginning, something eternal, something beyond the boundaries of time and space that has a consciousness which caused the existence of the domain of the CREATED. This timeless, dimensionless Being is called God.
Belief

Okay, Proposition- you win. Opposition can't prove that there's a God, and I doubt that they can even offer a convincing argument that there is a God. And yet I'm writing this on the opposition side. I believe that God could come out today, show himself like I believe He did at Mt. Sinai, and thus cause all humans to believe, out of knowledge, in Him. However, He does not do this, and hasn't done such a thing for approximately three thousand years. Why? Because faith in God is just that- faith. We'll never know for certain that God exists, and that is part of the challenge. If you knew that there was a Creator, then of course you would worship Him- otherwise he'd beat you up. Now that you don't know, that you need to be in a constant state of BELIEF, not KNOWLEDGE- your task becomes harder. And so, if you don't believe in God- I can't convince you (though people do try to do that- it doesn't seem to work). You don't think he exists? I can't help that. But you can't convince me otherwise, because you too don't have any facts at your disposal, only belief. And I'll finish my point with Pascal's famous quote (though, again, it won't convince those who don't want to be convinced): "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore One should believe in God."