Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children

Ok, this has now become an embarrassment to both of us, but I'm going to continue anyway. First, I asked several good debaters, including the DDO president, what to do about the definition problem. I was told to make a case for mine in the comments section. That is not cheating, and my opponent is welcome to post whatever he wishes there, in response. He won't do that though, because it seems he is hoping for a win on a technicality.I'm introducing an independent analysis of Dr. Gershoff's work, by the American Psychological Association (APA)(1). This is an official press release from June 2002. I'll refer to this analysis several times, in this round, but the first quotes show evidence for the need for a reasonable definition."Furthermore, studying the true effects of corporal punishment requires drawing a boundary line between punishment and abuse." (emphasis mine)"The meta-analysis also demonstrates that the frequency and severity of the corporal punishment matters."In the first quote we see that even the APA feels that the scope of the evidence used, WILL effect the conclusions. In order to see the true effects of what you're studying, you have to draw a line, and exclude evidence outside that scope. The second quote, also regarding Gershoff's work, shows why the first quote is true, and it pretty much speaks volumes about this entire debate. The actions taken against the child will determine the outcomes you get, thus the need to clearly delineate what is, and what is not, "normative punishment", a good term btw. I accepted this challenge thinking that pro wanted a legitimate discussion of the pro and con side of the reasonable use of CP. He even mentions "shaking". I ask you, who would advocate the shaking of a child as a legitimate form of punishment, and who would knowingly accept a debate challenge, where you were required to defend that position??Contention 1- No argument offered by pro, against my refutation. Sub 1a and 1b- First, pro has not addressed my argument against the relevancy of long-term effectiveness. Again, his case stipulates to it's effectiveness in the short-term, which is what it's for.Secondly, pro is mistaken when he says that I admit to those causes. When I said it CAN cause, I was merely mimicking HIS argument. He says it CAN cause this, and CAN result in that, but he has not shown that it DOES lead to those things. Even Dr. Gershoff is careful how she words her statements. Let's look at a quote from his opening." If this means that adult antisocial behavior is more likely after being spanked as a child, given that other research shows antisocial parents are at greater risk to abuse children, then this could mean that spanking one’s child may increase the risk of abuse for one’s grandchildren." (emphasis mine)Pro mocks my argument for the need for a causal link, but both his and Gershoff's statements show the need for that link. Without it, these statements are nothing more than speculation. One other note, pointing out that there is a "risk" for something is, at best, a tenuous argument because it does not speak to actual incidence. The possibility of a causal link is brought up in the APA analysis."While the nature of the analyses prohibits causally linking corporal punishment with the child behaviors..."Pro's entire case against my "Causal Link" argument, and thus his ability to prove anything, using Gershoff's work, falls with that single statement. The nature of the analysis prohibits finding a causal link between CP and bad outcomes. Third, pro depends on Gershoff's work for points 1a and 1b, so the validity of her work must be established. The APA says:"But, Gershoff also cautions that her findings do not imply that all children who experience corporal punishment turn out to be aggressive or delinquent. A variety of situational factors, such as the parent/child relationship, can moderate the effects of corporal punishment."This begs a number of questions. If situational factors effect outcomes positively, what role does ADVERSE situational factors play in those bad outcomes?? Can you rule out those adverse situational factors as the actual cause of the bad outcomes?? Which kids DO have bad outcomes, and what punishments were used??All these questions, and many more raised by her work, remain unanswered by her meta-analysis, and other evidence provided by my opponent. I would argue that her work shows no causal link between CP and the conclusions she finds. Further, her work is useless when it comes to determining outcomes for the reasonable use of CP, because the data she examines uses extreme forms of punishment. Let's refer again to the APA analysis."In a reply to Gershoff, researchers Diana Baumrind, PhD (Univ. of CA at Berkeley), Robert E. Larzelere, PhD (Nebraska Medical Center), and Philip Cowan, PhD (Univ.of CA at Berkeley), write that because the original studies in Gershoff's meta-analysis included episodes of extreme and excessive physical punishment, her finding is not an evaluation of normative corporal punishment."I would like to note, at this point, that pro, in defense of his definition this round stated that, "abuse is not included in my case". A peer-review of Gershoff's work, by three Phd's, clearly shows that to be a false statement.So, does any evidence presented by pro give us any information that is provable, relevant to reasonable CP, or of any value when discussing the resolution of this debate?? I say no, but let's go again to the APA, for a quote from the three Phd's, in the above paragraph."The evidence presented in the meta-analysis does not justify a blanket injunction against mild to moderate disciplinary spanking," conclude Baumrind and her team. Baumrind et al. also conclude that "a high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse is not evidence that mild or moderate corporal punishment increases the risk of abuse." The other studies, which I did contest for largely the same reasons, are admittedly by pro, based on the same things.Sub 1c- My rebuttal does not work against me. There is no assertion, nor is there burden on me to show, that CP is the BEST punishment. Different things work for different kids. This gives validity to my "Parental Rights" argument, that parents are the best ones to decide for their children.Contention 2- Until the laws of our land reflect a human rights violation, what other countries choose to call it has no bearing on whether or not, I should use it. Does this document specifically speak to normative punishment?? When did lawyers become experts in child health?? History- Does my opponent need a link to this debate to show that we've survived in spite of CP??Parental Rights- Pro did not accurately, or efficiently address this argument.Positives of CP- Pro's case stipulates to the only assertion made here.Causal Link- Evidence for this argument is shown in my sub 1a and 1b section, this round. Pro provides no cogent refutation. My opponent offered no real challenge to my opening arguments, and I have shown this round that the evidence used in pro's case is inadequate, so all he's left with is opinion. His belief, and choice not to use CP, is his to make, but it does not affirm the resolution.I look forward to the final round. 1. http://www.apa.org...