Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children

First though, we have a disagreement on the definition of corporal punishment (CP). Though there is some room for flexibility, I would ask the voters to consider our arguments based on my definition, for the following reasons.1. Corporal punishment is a very broad term, and if not defined, would require me to defend ANY type of physical punishment, including obvious abuse.2. With due respect to ScarletGhost, with his challenge to debate, no definition was provided until my definition was given and seen to possibly limit the scope of his argument.3. Definitions are important to delineate what is being defended or challenged by the participants. My definition clearly lays out the punishments that I defend, those who have the right to use them, when they may be used, and why. His definition is extremely broad, leaving room to make arguments that those in favor of corporal punishment do not defend. Using his definition, though extreme, I could even be forced to defend stoning or waterboarding as a punishment. Opening ArgumentsThe resolution indicates that opponents believe that it's wrong to spank ANY child, in ANY way, for ANY reason, at ANY time. Such a blanket statement is difficult to defend, and I challenge this one for several reasons. History as EvidenceCorporal punishment has been used for thousands of years, in fact most of us over the age of thirty probably had it used on us as the primary source of punishment. Though I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that abuse exists, or that abuse "can" lead to emotional problems, I contend that the vast majority of us came out of it alright, without emotional damage, without being abused, and without becoming murderous child abusers. This is true for all of history. There are literally billions of people who were spanked as a child, some of them even abused, who turned out to be perfectly normal, productive citizens, who went on to be loving parents that raised another generation of loving parents, and productive citizens. Parental Rights and Decision MakingThroughout our country's history the rights of parents, to raise their children as they see fit, have been legally protected. Most proponents of CP would agree that society, through laws, has a right to define what is injurious. Most of us though, don't need laws to tell us that, and we have enough love for our kids to know that we don't want to do harm to them physically, or to their psyche. Though there are obviously child abusers, the vast majority of us are loving parents who respect the limits of effective CP. There are already laws against child abuse yet abuse continues, therefore I contend that the actions of a few, do not warrant unilateral governmental, or societal, interference in the parent-child relationship. The more outspoken opponents of CP seem to think that they know what's best for all kids, including mine and yours. How could that be? ? All kids are different, learn lessons differently, respond to verbal instruction differently, etc. Who is in the best position to make that decision, and responsibly decide what works and doesn't work? ? The parents, of course, that's why I contend that they have no rationale for claiming that they know what's best. Positives of Responsible CPResponsible CP, as I defined it, has the benefit of teaching a child that certain things are harmful to them. I agree that other measures should be tried first, such as redirecting the child's attention, but occasionally a swat on the behind, or smacking the hand of a stubborn toddler teaches them to associate pain with electrical plugs, without having to experience electrocution. It also instills, at a young age, the idea that the parents are the authority figures and that they are subject to that authority. This makes it much easier to get them to respond to other forms of direction when they are mature enough to process verbal instruction. When used as most proponents use it, and at a young age, later childhood can be a much more enjoyable time for the child, and the parent, because they already have the knowledge that there are boundaries, as well as consequences for going beyond. The responsible use of CP involves trying other methods first, using CP as an infrequent thing, and using it mostly to teach the child not to do things that might cause harm to themselves, or others. We do not support spanking a child because he is in front of the TV and won't move, or some other such harmless acts. No Causal LinkOpponents claim many things about the effects of CP, however there is little in the way of a causal link between responsible use of CP, and the long term-effects claimed. My opponent will probably provide some corollary arguments, but I predict that the causal link will not be there. For that, he will need to delve into areas that we'd all likely agree, would be considered abusive, and thus I shouldn't be required to defend. This furthers the need to use my definition of what it is that I'm defending. There are claims that it CAN cause this, and it CAN make them do that, but until that causal link is provided, without going to obvious abuse to get it, the blanket statement made by the resolution remains unsubstantiated. RefutationContention 1- This is a blanket statement that remains unsubstantiated. Who am I to say, and how would I know, what is proper for your child? ?There is no argument about long term value because CP, as I defined it, is used to correct immediate behaviors that can harm the child. Please note that my opponent stipulates to the effectiveness of CP, in the short-term, saying that it has been proven. If it is effective with most children, and can't be proven harmful, who's to say that it's improper? ?Sub 1a- There is no assertion of long-term effectiveness. CP is a way of fixing short-term issues. I disagree that it's intention is to instill discipline, though that is a benefit of responsible CP. That's only true when CP is used as the main method of punishment, which I do not believe is a responsible use. Gershoff's study is largely irrelevant to this debate because it considers practices that I do not defend as responsible. Information from the other studies is irrelevant as well because it gives no information about what kind of punishment, ages, or any other factors. The argument relies on linking aggression and CP, and it doesn't even consider the use of responsible CP, or list any ill-effects from it. It simply assumes that it leads to escalating aggression, and gets the conclusion from that escalation. Sub 1b- Unsubstantiated. CAN lead to, CAN result in does not show the causal link, and again, Gershoff has to go into abusive situations in order to gain a conclusion. This is not reflective of the responsible use of CP. Sub 1c- There are other effective alternatives, granted, but to say those alternatives always work, with every child, in every situation, thus CP is never warranted has yet to be proven. Does it surprise anyone that people tend to answer so that they are compliant with the laws of the land? ? What questions were they asked that drew this conclusion? ? Still doesn't show that CP ought not be used in any case. Contention 2- The UN Universal Declaration has not been ratified by the US, and thus has no jurisdiction here. Why? ? Because it's recognized as a massive intrusion on parental rights, that our government has no constitutional right to implement. In closing I'd like to say that nothing in my opponents argument substantiates the resolution, or his intent. In fact most of it deals with what most would call abusive situations, and does not reflect the responsible use of CP. The argument depends on getting you to link CP with abuse, without providing that causal link, which is crucial in debate. Again I thank ScarletGhost, and look forward to the next round.