Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children

I'd like to start by saying that I did not cheat. I did not ask for help from others for my argumentation. I asked advice on what to do for a difference on a definition, once the debate started. This is a procedural matter that I had never had happen before. Exactly what rule says I can't do that? ? I did what I was advised, and will leave that to the voter. I'm not even going to spend much time on definitions this round because frankly, my opponent proved NOTHING about ANYTHING. As I predicted in my opening, he was not able to provide that causal link. The majority of his case depended on Dr. Gershoff's work, but as I showed last round, it's value to this debate is nil. In fact, a peer-review of her work shows that a causal link is prohibited by the nature of what she was using. The lack of a causal link extends to all the data supplied by pro. Without that causal link, everything he presented is mere speculation. Unless he provided something proving CP to be the cause of something, ruling out situational factors as being the cause, he has no support for and did not uphold the resolution. My opponent, even in this round continues to claim that his case does not include abuse, but I showed that to be a blatantly false statement, not by my opinion, but by 3 Phd's who peer-reviewed Dr. Gershoff's work. ". .. Gershoff's meta-analysis included episodes of extreme and excessive physical punishment. .. ". That same work by Gershoff was the centerpiece of his case, therefore, there was abuse in his case. He speaks again about risk, but provides no causal link showing a risk of anything. He can claim that CP leads to an increased risk in athlete's foot, but unless he can show the actual incidence of, and that CP is solely responsible, his claim is again, speculation and opinion. He does not have to show that it leads to those things in ALL cases, but he does have to show that it leads to, and is responsible for enough cases, to justify the blanket indictment made in the resolution. He failed, and did not prove anything. My opponent is wrong about Sub 1c. It seems he doesn't understand his burden in this debate. I don't have to show that CP is the BEST, or the OPTIMAL punishment, as he states. It is HIS burden to affirm the resolution. He seems to think that all he has to show is that it's not the BEST, but that's untrue. He needs to show that it ought not be used at all. That is the resolution. As for the UN document, try as he might, my opponent cannot go get a document from some other governing body, and claim it has application in this country. This country does not recognize the validity of the document, and we are not bound by the morals and values of other countries. It has not been shown that the document speaks specifically about normative punishment, or that the findings agree with medical principles accepted in this country, just that it's examined by lawyers. He says it is universally accepted, but that is obviously not true. If it were universally accepted, why has it not been ratified in the US? ? I have shown, and common sense dictates, that in spite of CP being used for thousands of years, we have survived and grown as a people. I have argued, and my opponent did not refute, that parental rights to make decisions for their child are legally protected. He also did not refute my argument that the parent is the best person to decide what ought to be used for their child. My opponent stipulates, as does his evidence, that CP is effective in the short-term. I have shown, and provided peer-review of his evidence, showing that no causal link can be found.