Resolved: Parents ought not use corporal punishment to rear children

Alright, sorry for the holdup in responding to my opponent's debate. Before continuing to go anywhere into my opponent's argument, I would like to point out to the judges that he has placed an argument for himself outside the realm of this debate inside the comment section in order to uphold his definition, which is pretty much an unfair advantage in this debate because he is making an argument outside the time constraints, rules, and regulations within the debate that we both have a burden to uphold. So, make sure to take a not of that when you are making considerations on who is winner of the debate. Now, to his argument. The argument begins at the definition level as I remember it, where my opponent has given a definition that does not stretch very well to encompass the entirety of what corporal punishment really is. It is not only construed to a slap on the wrist or on the bottom or anything of the sort, but it can also extend to belting, shaking, or just hitting them in order to change behavior. My opponent states that we must look toward his definition because he put one first before I did and because my definition can encompass abuse as well, but he seems not to understand my definition well if he is saying so because my definition made it distinct what the point of abuse was, so abuse is not included in my case. It really doesn't matter who makes what definition first, but what definition is more official or credible for the judgement of this debate, and as my opponent has said in his argument outside of the realm of the debate, he didn't get his definition from any sources whereas I got mine from an official source in medicine. Plus, it extends to include many things about corporal punishment, so you can consider my definition over his. Because of this, my opponent's argument against Sub 1a is knocked down because I have shown you how my definition is better to look at than his own, you can extend my subppoint across the flow. The other two subpoints within my contention and the rebuttals thereof are pretty easy to argue in, especially since in the second subpoint, my opponent actually upholds what the argument was saying. Corporal punishment CAN lead to these negative effects. At the point where we know that this can cause terirble injury physically and psychologically, as I have shown you in my case, and a parent still uses it to discipline a child, that is nothing but immoral because you are subjecting your child to something that can you can possibly, and very likely bring him harm. These studies are all for all of corporal punishment, including the study that my opponent briefly mentioned for this subpoint, and since my opponent doesn't argue against the rest, you can extend it across the flow. Then, the greatest thing about his argument for Subpoint 1c is that his own rebuttal can work against his own argument. Every alternative is not guaranteed, including corporal punishment, which means that corporal punishment may not always work, and we need to find a better alternative. The best thing about my case is that if one alternative doesn't work, there's plenty more you can use to reach the objective that corporal punishment tries to acquire, and as I have shown you with the evidence in my case, this is something actually real. He also didn't argue the consideration that corporal punishment doesn't bring these outcomes so effieciently. Since I have uphelp all of my subpoints, it clearly shows us that corporal punishment simply isn't the best thing to use for a child, so I have upheld my contention there. My opponent brings up a pretty irrelevant case against my contention 2, where he says that the UN document hasn't been ratified by the Constitution, but his argument would only be relevant if we were talking in a United States context alone, which we are not. Corporal punishment extends to many societies outside of the US, and the doctrine only serves to be an interpretation of the human rights of all. As I have proven to you, there's so much argumentation by lawyers studied in this realm that corporal punishment in all forms is a violation of human rights, which my opponent also does not argue, so extend that across the flow as well. Now, to move on to my opponent's argument: You will notice, judges, that my opponent puts a lot of statements here in his argument, but not one of them has a credible link to uphold anything of what he is saying, especially with the history and the positives of corporal punishment as well as the little casual link. You will see that his entire case falls under this limited definition of what corporal punishment really is, and for that matter, in addition to the lack of evidence, that already makes his entire statement shaky and questionable. The big argument you can take off his argument about the lack of a casual link because it doesn't have evidence and doesn't look at the correct thing. When it comes to the positives of CP, he is also doing this in addition to upholding spanking on the bottom (which I have shown in one of my evidence cards that can actually cause injury), so ignore that point as well. Then, there's the history as evidence, but even then that is questionable as well considering that he offers no evidence to make the links that he is linking. Society turned out great even when corporal punishment existed, but there have been heavy levels of abuse and murder of children and other negative things during that time, but since he has no evidence of the sort for that argument, there's no way to critically analyze that point. Much of his argument is nothing more than just rhetoric from what I read from it, and I'm sure judges that you will get the same analysis. That only leaves the argument about parental rights. I'm sure many of us are loving parents who do not want to bring injury to our children, but as I have proven in my case, that is exactly what you can bring to these children with the use of CP, as I have proven in my case. I have shown you how corporal punishment is inefficient and potentially dangerous, and as a responsible parent with a duty to the welfare of your children, you will see that corporal punishment is not the best choice. So what have I proven? I've shown you how my opponent's argument is very lacking in evidence to connect the dots of his points and make a serious analysis instead of putting so much rhetoric to uphold his case alone. I have shown you that my opponent has placed an unfair advantage for himself, so you might as well vote for me because he is in essence cheating at this point, and I was able to defend all of my points.