On Balance, Spanking is Detrimental

Thanks, Con.Correlation vs causationa) Sure, studies on this topic can only correlational, for a study to prove to causation would have to be experimental, which would obviously never happen for ethical reasons. Con insists that my studies should be dismissed simply because they’re correlational, but this isn’t how research works. The point of these studies is to find the most likely cause of an outcome, and account for anything that may confound the result. Let’s say I found that higher levels of exercise correlate with lower rates of cancer and heart disease. This alone doesn’t prove causation, but when paired with expert testimony on how exercise can lower your risks of cancer and heart disease, we can use common sense to infer that the former probably causes the latter. Considering how Con provided zero compelling confounding variables that would’ve distorted the conclusions, my case becomes that much more emphatic.b) Con says my evaluation of the P-value is wrong because I asserted that it shows a higher likelihood of causation. This is a straw man; I only stated that the findings with low P-values (lower than 0.05) imply an unlikelihood of them being due to random chance (statistical significance), and that the null hypothesis should be thrown out. My studies show that spanking probably causes the mentioned outcomes, which is fair to assume with high confidence intervals and no confounding variables exist to distort that assumption. Con would have you believe that the null hypothesis is true, despite some of the studies directly negating that notion.Longitudinal vs cross-sectionala) The contention made is that my longitudinal studies don’t account for the traits the children exhibited prior to the study, but Con is dead wrong here. My studies explicitly state that they do; the Tulane University one found an association with spanking and higher levels of aggression, “even with controlling for the child’s level of aggression at age 3” [2]. Murray Straus’ antisocial behavior study stated that “the analysis controlled for the level of [antisocial behavior] at the start of the study” [3]. The study analyzing 1,900 families found that maternal spanking was associated with more externalizing behavior later on, “even after an array of risks and and earlier childhood behavior were controlled for.” [7] The prior traits were accounted for, despite his objections.b) Longitudinal methodology is actually superior to cross-sectional when it comes to assessing the effects of spanking. Longitudinal studies follow participants over a period of time, assessing anything that occurs in a period of, say, a few years. Cross-sectional ones are static in contrast; they only take in information from a population at *one* point in time, rendering them useless when trying to find the long-term effects that spanking may have.DefinitionsCon asserts that the definition of spanking differs from study to study, but doesn’t go far in elaborating. His source states that, in that study, spanking was “often used to refer to most forms of [corporal punishment] that are within the socially acceptable level of severity, such as a slap on the hand for taking something off of a supermarket shelf” (Con’s 2nd source). While this definition is broader, how would a slap on the wrist confound a conclusion made on the effects of a slap on the behind? There’s no reason to assume the former is more severe than the latter, as they are both physical punishments than induce pain. I would judge the latter as harsher, given that it usually happens in repetition and hits a more sensitive body part. Until Con can show a significant difference, this point is moot. Con’s studiesThe argument in the alternative discipline study cited is that negative outcomes have been associated with non-physical forms of discipline, as well as spanking. But his study actually stated that time-outs weren’t really predictors of negative outcomes: “Removing privileges and sending children to their room did not have as many significant associations with antisocial behavior.” (Con’s 4th source) His source did say that child psychotherapy was associated with antisocial behavior, but this can only be the case when we understand that worse behaved children are going to be taken to psychotherapy sessions more often. Common sense would indicate that, if we adjusted for that, antisocial behavior would likely improve over time, since psychotherapy is known to be helpful. The same can’t be said for spanking.The meta-analysis I cited reviewed 3 times as many studies as Con’s did (88 vs 26). Con’s meta, furthermore, doesn’t even let us access any of the 26 studies it’s supposed to be summarizing, so I’m unable to tell what methodologies they used, what variables they controlled for, what the sample sizes were, or how the researchers came to conclusion they did. Gershoff’s meta, in contrast, is far more detailed and explains every element of the study design (Con’s 1st source). You should, therefore, buy mine over Con’s.ConclusionCon’s rebuttals are weak, and his neg case is frail. My studies account for various confounding variables that show spanking to be the likely cause of negative outcomes mentioned. The methodologies used are superior to other ones, despite his objections. Unless he can show how they encompass physical abuse, his definition point is moot. The sources he provided didn't really go anywhere, and they certainly don't compare to the affirming ones.For sources, refer to the previous round.