Domestic Corporal Punishment is Always Immoral

My opponent is simply arguing more on a "emotional" level than an actual factual level. My opponent first states " When a child is beaten for poor behavior, they rarely learn why their behavior was wrong" My opponent doesn't seem to think that when a child is corrected, they are usually not spanked for no reason what-so-ever, parents generally tell the child not to do that, and then they may receive a spanking in return. But, if my opponent wants to make this about the Bible, then we should also see that spanking is infact okay. "Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death" (Proverbs 23:13-14, NLT). If my opponent want to make this about the bible, then my scripture completely contradicts his. His scripture is simply wrong because he does not understand it. My opponent then wants to claim that the bible is the reason for DCP. He states that “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell” (Proverbs 23:14). Regardless of its origin, DCP continues to be practiced around the world. Its use takes multiple forms, but the most common include spanking, paddling and whipping the child’s buttocks or the back." This is complete non-sense. I'm pretty sure parents who don't believe in God still discipline their children, weather the Bible is true or not. If you are for DCP, its not just because you belive in the Bible, though that may be one factor. But, you simply could agree to DCP depending on: -how you were raised -what you were taught -moral standpoints -how you believe your child should be raised. My opponent seems to think that children don't learn anything from a physical disciple. Generally, when you get spanked, you don't want to ever be spanked again, therefore you will do what is right. If parents were to just verbally discipline their children, the children would be more likely to do what is wrong again because there is no major consequence. My opponent also seems to think that whatever discipline you give your child, you are merely beating them. First, let's note that there is a huge difference between beating, and discipline. Beat- strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, usually with an implement such as a club or whip Discipline- control that is gained by requiring that rules or orders be obeyed and punishing bad behavior. Now that we have distinguished the difference between the 2 words... My opponent seems to think that no matter *how* you discipline your child, they will be mentally, unhealthy. [1] There's also the issue of intent. "A parent who spanks as a form of discipline is quite different from one who strikes with the goal of injuring a child," argues Dr. Trumbull. "Clearly, the long-term effects will be vastly different in these two instances." For this reason, he contends, studies that lump openhanded spanking with potentially abusive methods, like kicking, face-slapping, or paddling with painful objects, are misleading. As lots of my sources have shown, the benefits of spaking do the child a great amount of good, especially when they get older. [2] Spanking is like milk: It does a body good — or at least a mind. No, this isn’t the conclusion of traditionalist parenting expert Dr. James Dobson but the finding of a study conducted by psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. FoxNews.com reports on the story, writing, “According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.” [2] Common sense tells us some other things as well. For one thing, we often hear that corporal punishment is damaging because it “teaches violence,” a nonsensical assertion if ever there were one (I completely refute this notion here). It is ironic, too, given that those who promote this idea are generally evolutionists who believe man to simply be a highly evolved animal. After all, can you think of an animal that doesn’t at times use violence? Animals use it in defense of self and territory, to kill prey, to win females, and sometimes simply because they’re angry. Hey, even Bambi is guilty. I read a while back about a deer that attacked a man, impaling the fellow with his antlers. Yet, evolutionists would have us believe that somehow, magically, man is the only “animal” who ended up with the Gandhi gene while “evolving” in this violent world. Of course, in reality, as even cursory observation of babies and toddlers informs, it’s more like the Attila the Hun gene. When they have tantrums, they will often lash out, hitting, biting, and pulling hair. Hey, they will cry and scream without that behaviour being modeled for them, either. Despite this, some would have us believe that parents can control these often violent, disagreeable little creatures without occasional recourse to physical action themselves. These experts tell us that if you have to resort to such a tactic, there is something wrong with your parenting ability. This is an interesting theory. If it is valid, we can save ourselves a heck of a lot of money. My opponent seems to think that when a parents disciplines their child, they're intentions are to hurt the child greatly, this is not the case. Its to merely teach the child a lesson. If a parent beats a child, that is another issue. That is simply child abuse. If a parent spanks a childs hand, is this abuse? I would like to ask my opponent to argue more on a discipline side. He seems to think that all parents who discipline their children are merely child abusers, and that isn't right, nor fair. Sources: [1] http://www.parents.com... [2]http://www.thenewamerican.com...