Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Challenge Match. TLomon v TheDuckster: Corporal Punishment

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Corporal punishment is never the best way to correct a child's bad behavior".

TLomon will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
TheDuckster will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.


Responses should be made within 24 hours.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points, the loser will lose 2 ranking points, unless the loser already has zero ranking points. This debate will be judged by a secret pannel.




posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Hello, all. My name is Turlo Lomon (aka TLomon), and I will be taking the pro side of "Corporal punishment is never the best way to correct a child's bad behavior". This is my first public debate, so let me head on straight into the discussion. I have a lot of respect for the posts my opponent, The Duckster, makes, so it is an honor to debate him here. May the best man... ummm... duck... win.

There are two basic divisions of corporal punishment, namely punishing children and punishing adults. I will address children first, as this is what you, the readers, are most likely familiar with. If my opponent wishes, we can expand into the area of adult corporal punishment, or we can stay focused on just children. I am comfortable in defending either.

What is corporal punishment?


From Wikipedia
Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering intended to change a person's behavior or to punish them.


Deliberate infliction of pain and suffering? Isn't that the same as torture? The bottom line is it doesn't work. It causes problems in children as they grow to adulthood. It can easily dive into that grey area between discipline and abuse. All of this is easily proven.

The statement "spare the rod, spoil the child" is a fallacy. It doesn't work on animals. Why would it work on children as well? There is a reason why more and more countries are outlawing this practice. There is a reason why television campaigns focus on preventing this. That reason is the problems that corporal punishment cause to both the individual and society as a whole.

Are you a supporter of corporal punishment with your child? If so, please take the time to review very carefully the evidence I will present to you. You may re-evaulate your position after absorbing it all.

In conclusion, corporal punishment is bad. I can prove this, both statistically and scientifically. Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to my opponents opening statement as well.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Opening Statement:

First off, I would like to thank our Moderator, The Vagabond, for setting up this match; a battle of wits against my new-found opponent, TLomon. Good luck to you sir.

I am TheDuckster, and will be advocating the CON side to Societie's never-ending debate, as to why it IS sometimes necessary to physically chastise our children; albeit in a 'loving manner'.

My Position:

* My opponent was kind enough to offer the choice of debating 'Adult Corporal Punishment' and/or 'Children Corporeal Punishment. I have opted to focus only on 'Children Corporal Punishment'. Thankyou for that choice Sir.

* I will de-criminalize the words 'Corporal Punishment' that have been synonymously equated to the word - 'Torture', (as my oppponent was quick to point out) and properly place them within the correctional context that it rightfully deserves.

As most of us know, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source of information on the net, and I would like to draw your attention to a veritable site that accurately describes the word Torture

The first line of description, is always portrayed to be 'most prominent' of descriptive meaning, and i.e. written accordingly.


–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.


'Loving' Chastisement would not follow under the guidelines of the above definition.

* Present Day children's respect/attitude towards 'Authority' are sorely lacking in the Educational system and in the home mainly.

* Lastly, I will integrate examples/cited-resources that will enable the reader to realise, and hopefully come to the conclusion that 'physical chastisement of a child' is NOT detrimental to THAT childs psyche, nor will produce long-lasting repricussions; thus hampering an individuals mental or physical well-being.

"Whereas, simple adult words would not always be comprehended by very young children, there-in lies the 'back-up': A crack on the arse.

Thankyou.

You're up next TLomon.


Mod Edit: bbcode as per TheDuckster's request

[edit on 4-2-2008 by chissler]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I'll start this off by assuring my opponent that the reference above will be the only time he will see a link to Wikipedia. My goal was to obtain a general definition accepted by the public. Now, onto the debate!

What is the goal to using corporal punishment on a child? You want to change the child's behavior. This has been studied by a large number of behaviorial psychologists. One of the most reknown was named Dr. B. F. Skinner. His studies focused on punishment and negative reinforcement vs. positive reinforcement. His studies directly relate to this topic.


From An Interview With Skinner
When desiring to increase the abilities or knowledge of a user, one must understand the importance of giving the appropriate stimulus to the desired response. This cannot be assured when the one controlling the environment is not present.


A child does miscellaneous-naughty-thing, and their disciplinarians are not around, who is punishing them then? Without constant reinforcement, punishment will not work. Although a spanking might resolve the immediate issue from a discplinarian's perspective, the child will repeat the bad behavior. This will result in another spanking, and another, and another... Is the child really learning anything?


From Skinner, 1953, quoted here.
In fact, some forms of punishment (e.g., ritualized spanking) may be such traumatic events that they can draw the child’s attention away from the act being punished and to the punishment itself, again rendering the lesson difficult to learn.


Emphasis mine. If you feel the lab isn't an appropriate test environment, try reviewing interviews with children in schools where corporal punishment still exists. I will warn you now. Some of these interviews are a bit harsh, and I felt my eyes start to water when I read them. For the sake of good taste, I will not quote them here. To summarize, children are routinely sent to the hospital over acceptable corporal punishment. I will let you, the reader, review this for yourself to confirm my findings.

* Research and Children

Corporal punishment is not condusive to a learning environment. It hampers it. We want our children to learn. We want them to grow. Corporal punishment is sending them the wrong message. Add to this the problem of disciplinarians being human. They have tempers. They have issues. Giving them the ability to issue corporal punishment for any perceived wrongs is the same as giving a child a lit fire cracker. It is only a matter of time before the child is hurt.

How does a child learn what is correct behavior from corporal punishment? We aren't teaching them anything productive by using it. Other options must be used if we want to accomplish long term benefits.


From Skinner, 1953, quoted here.
Punishment does not always provide the direction that reward does. Punishment informs the child that a particular behavior is unacceptable but punishment does not necessarily inform the child of what alternative behaviors are acceptable.


Corporal punishment only teaches a child to avoid corporal punishment. It does not teach them correct behavior. This in turn would encourage lying and finger-pointing in an effort to avoid being punished. This was even observed in lab mice exposed to the same treatment. Children are more intelligent, and will come up with more creative ways to avoid it. Oh, but it gets worse.

In 1997, Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims published a study entitled "Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial Behavior of Children" in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine showing detrimental child outcome of nonabusive physical punishment by parents. This study was followed by Gunnoe and Mariner publishing a followup later that same year. It included differential findings between their study and the other 8 best studies to date. They were the first to track changes as over 5 years, which would make it a more representative sample. The conclusion of both of these studies was an increase in antisocial aggression as the spanking frequency increased over a year. This problem was also confirmed by other researchers.


From Bandura, 1977; Hetherington and Parke, 1979, quoted here.
Punishment, for example, may lead to increases in aggressive behavior in the punished child since punishment can frustrate children. Further, the act of punishing a child may serve as an aggressive behavior which can be imitated by the child. The constant use of punishment as a behavior control technique might also lead the child to feel a resentment toward the punishing adult. Consequently, the parent or caretaker who typically uses punishment may find that the child avoids him/her and this increased alienation may then render the adult an ineffective socializer in general for the child.


From Skinner, 1953, quoted here.
In addition, punishment, if not carefully used, might cause emotional reactions in the child which may make learning quite difficult. If the child is severely punished, he/she may become so emotionally aroused that learning is impaired and the lesson that the punishment is used to convey may be lost.


The question remaining is why are we intentionally causing such emotional distress in children through corporal punishment when other methods are proven to be more effective?

I believe my points have been made. In further posts, I will detail legal aspects, as well as additional long term affects corporal punishment has on our children. Now, some questions to my esteemed opponent.

* Question 1: In your view, are there any restrictions on who should be allowed to issue to corporal punishment?

* Question 2: In your view, are there any restrictions on what is allowed under corporal punishment?

* Question 3: When does corporal punishment turn into child abuse?

* Question 4: How does an adult know when they are about to cross this line?

* Question 5: How does a child know?

Harsh questions for a harsh reality. I look for to your response, TheDuckster.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
TLomon has provided compelling evidence to support his stance; although somewhat antiquated.

The most recent studies concerning this sensitive issue are in fact, tipping the scales in favor of Corporal Punishment - performed in loving manner.

Family News December 7, 2007:

Spare the Rod...Spoil the Child


The American College of Pediatricians finds spanking is an effective way to discipline your kids that, if handled correctly, does not harm them.

Parents who feel their unruly, young children need a good old-fashioned spanking now and then have the support of the American College of Pediatricians. Research from the doctor’s group finds that spanking “can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan.” Dr. Den Trumbull of ACP says at times, it is necessary.

“With young children, reasoning and explanation are insufficient in persuading them to have good behavior.”


Straight from the horse's mouth.

My Response to Question #1 and 2:

I believe that any action taken should be administered by the parents only. Corporal punishment should be allowed, but limited to only certain actions. More over, certainly never dealt out while one is in anger.

A 'Warning' must firstly be given. Also this site provides a means of 'effective spanking':

Use Loving Discipline When Spanking

****

Children today, are aware of certain laws; especially ones that pertain to physical reprimands. Should anyone, even their own parents lay a finger on them, these kids scream bloody murder.

They will utilise the law in their favor and hold this 'Sword of Damacles' over their parents heads in retaliation. "You hit me...and I'll call the police on you." In the majority of these cases, the parents back off, and parental authority is underminded.

Continual and repeated useage of this 'cycle', allows our children the 'upper hand', in keeping parents in line. Not the other way around.

This in itself creates another vicious cycle that extends past the confines of the home.

Seriously take a look at some of our youth of today.

No respect for Authority what so ever.

Mind you, I'm not pointing the finger of blame to every child out there, I've seen some pretty well-behaved children that have never needed Corporal Punishment at all.

There are many who so beligerent and obstinate, that are 'beyond reasoning with.

Research on Spanking:


On the other side are those who defend parental and family autonomy. They counter that common sense tells us spanking has very little to do with violent tendencies in people. One survey found that over 70 percent of adults today were spanked as children, and the vast majority are law-abiding, family-loving, productive members of society. Those who are violent have become so from a complex set of factors: genetic predisposition, community and social influences, biological factors, and the family environment.


My Response to Question #3:

It becomes child abuse when excessive force is applied and the frequency of Corporal punishment thereof.

My Response to Question #4:

An adult has 'crossed the line' from spankings into child abuse when emotions flair. At this time, it is important for the adult to realise what has happened, and more or less, take a 'time out'; step back from the situation.

My Response to Question #5:

Are you asking how does the child know when an adult has crossed the line? (Pertaining to Question #4?) Please clarify this for me.

Spanking is not the only means of discipline, but has been proven to be a time honored effective tool, when used properly and most importantly conscientiously

Thankyou.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Backing up a second, my opponent chose to supply a non-Wikipedia definition for torture, but declined to give the definition for corporal punishment from the same source. Review both entries and they are very similiar... when you check the first definition. However, since my opponent has conceeded the point that non-parents should not be involved (as previous examples have shown), we can use the second definition.

From Dictionary.com:
physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority.

Now that we have established what my opponent feels is still acceptable, let's review the references she supplied. The first, 'Spare the rod, spoil the child' is a report on the statement made by the American College of Pediatricians. There are three problems with this report. First, the most interesting, is a statement left out of the above quote.

From 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'
Of course spanking can be misused. So Trumbull has some directives to make it most effective and rarely needed.

This shows there is an inherent problem with spanking unless someone receives special training from Trumbull. Where do parents receive this special training? Are parents required to be certified before spanking their child? The reason for these questions is simple. If Trumbull realizes, as he clearly stated in his own words, that spanking is a potentional problem, how can he in good faith recommend it? Even more interesting was a statement further down.

From 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'
The ACP’s statement is in direct opposition to the American Medical Association that condemns spanking and links it to youth violence.

Now, why would the ACP be against the AMA? Well, let's take a look at its members. The ACP is formed of pediatricians. These are doctors that specialize in the physical well being of children. The AMA receives medical reports from all divisions of medicine, which would include behavioral psychology. Its review of all areas of medicine created a consensus that there is a link to youth violence. This falls under emotional well being, an area that pediatricians do not specialize in. Although Dr. Gunnoe thinks this is a great change, she is ignoring the fact that there is a reason for specialists, and that is the focus on their field of studies. You would not want an ophthalmologist giving you advice on dentistry. Why should we do something similiar in this case? Dr. Gunnoe wants this to be the answer, as it supports her own work in the field.

Let's take a look at Dr. Gunnoe's work for a moment. Her own findings indicated that there was a problem. I already used her as a reference. She is purposely trying to find something to support her hypothesis, but that is all it really is. A hypothesis. Her own testing proved this to be true. The only reason for her support is it brings back her original theories to the limelight.

This study was followed by Gunnoe and Mariner publishing a followup later that same year. It included differential findings between their study and the other 8 best studies to date. They were the first to track changes as over 5 years, which would make it a more representative sample. The conclusion of both of these studies was an increase in antisocial aggression as the spanking frequency increased over a year. This problem was also confirmed by other researchers.

My opponent chose to reference Use Loving Discipline When Spanking, which is unfortunate. First, it specifically contradicts the other articles on what is acceptable as a "spanking".

From Use Loving Discipline When Spanking:
God has instructed parents to use a "rod," not the hand, when they need to lovingly correct their children with a spanking. (A rod is a flexible twig or stick.)

The author references God as instructing this. Where exactly does it state "Spare the rod, spoil the child" in the Bible? That phrase is not in the Bible, despite many sites that claim it does. None of them can actually point out the verse, but perhaps this analysis will help.

From Hitting is Actually Not Biblical
Don't use the Bible as an excuse to spank. There is confusion in the ranks of people of Judeo-Christian heritage who, seeking help from the Bible in their effort to raise godly children, believe that God commands them to spank. They take "spare the rod and spoil the child" seriously and fear that if they don't spank, they will commit the sin of losing control of their child. In our counseling experience, we find that these people are devoted parents who love God and love their children, but they misunderstand the concept of the rod.

The book of Proverbs is one of poetry. It is logical that the writer would have used a well-known tool to form an image of authority. We believe that this is the point that God makes about the rod in the Bible – parents take charge of your children. When you re-read the "rod verses," use the concept of parental authority when you come to the word "rod," ratherthan the concept of beating or spanking. It rings true in every instance.

While Christians and Jews believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God, it is also a historical text that has been interpreted in many ways over the centuries, sometimes incorrectly in order to support the beliefs of the times. These "rod" verses have been burdened with interpretations about corporal punishment that support human ideas. Other parts of the Bible, especially the New Testament, suggest that respect, authority, and tenderness should be the prevailing attitudes toward children among people of faith.

Here are some examples of what a "rod" looks like, taken from here. Yes, it looks rather harsh. It sends shivers up my spine thinking that any parent believes that is an acceptable form of discipline. I would hope any parent caught using "the ideal tool for child training" be arrested on the spot. Sadly, my opponent appears to feel otherwise.

From Stop the Rod:


My opponent would argue that children are being more uncivil, with no respect for authority. I would like to point out the keyword she used: some. When we were all growing up, some of our fellow children were disrespectful and rebellious. Things have not changed, other then the media covering it. However, instead of looking at my opponent's opinion, let's take a look at some actual facts.

Each year, more and more parents are resorting to methods other then corporal punishment when disciplining their children. Coincidentally enough, violent crime is decreasing more and more each year. How is it that a decrease in spankings is causing a direct correlation to a decreased crime rate? The only reason for increased media coverage is because sensationalism sells. However, that is a topic for another debate entirely.

* Social Change and Trends in Approval of Corporal Punishment by Parents from 1968-1994
* Trends in violent victimizations, 1973-2005

Despite Dr. Baumrind's assurtion that "no evidence can be found that spanking by a loving parent causes harm to children", I strongly disagree, as there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Remove the spanking, and crime decreases. It is far from the "common sense" answer that is regurgitated again and again in Research on Spanking because there is nothing scientific about "common sense". Hard data. The author of that article doesn't appear to be using any.

You stated "an adult has 'crossed the line' from spankings into child abuse when emotions flair." Wouldn't this be the hardest time possible for the adult to realise this has happened? How would a parent know to take a time out when they are caught up in the emotional moment they are having? Prevent the abuse from being a possibility by not allowing spanking in the first place seems to be a more logical excuse. Oh, but according to Dr. Baumrind, "common sense" prevails over logic and data. This is also interesting, because in other articles, Dr. Baumrind stated she was against spanking.


From Spare the rod, the child... Stop Spanking our children:
Spanking also carries the risk of triggering the release of pent up parental anger and stress. This anger can, unfortunately, start a chain reaction that frequently ends in child abuse.

Many instances of abuse start out as simple spanking only to degenerate into full scale brutality because the helpless child was too bewildered to be broken into submission.

There is so much more I would like to talk about, but there is a character limit for each post. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to ask my opponent just one question.

* Question 1: You are supplying articles that indicate use a rod, never the hand, and others indicating use your hand, never a rod. What should you use, given you aren't allowed to use either by your own statements?



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I want to address TLomon's last question, to not only reiterate my point of view, but to further clarify the Definition of 'spanking' and it's approved methods. My opponent has already provided definition[s] pertaining to 'corporal punishment'. To address this further would be a moot point.


the Oxford English Dictionary, defines the verb to spank as "To slap or smack (a person, esp. a child) with the open hand." Its earliest etymological entry, dated 1727, reads, "To spank, to slap with the open Hand." Another citation from 1889 shows how it was done then (and
continues to be done now): "My mother . . . lifted me cleverly [and planted two spanks behind."

In 1996, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) gave a similar definition of "disciplinary spanking": "[It] is physically non-injurious, administered with an opened hand to the buttocks, and intended to modify behavior." This is the definition agreed upon by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the one I use. I reject any broader definition as an insidious effort to demonize this age-old and harmless practice.



Question 1: You are supplying articles that indicate use a rod, never the hand, and others indicating use your hand, never a rod. What should you use, given you aren't allowed to use either by your own statements?


I gave clear cut examples ONLY, and in no way, did I mention that corporal punishment should disclude using one's hand. I will say for the record, that I do NOT condone the use of a 'rod', as this would contradict even my own words: "Excessive force." Therefore, we will stick to the
definition that I have supplied above, and additional support information that is in reference to that action only.

Back to the matter at hand (parden the pun).

Spanking should not be the first resort in discipline. Other techniques are favored: verbal admonitions, 'time outs', removing privelages etc.

In the case of older children, removing privilages from 8, 9, or 10 year olds would be more effective than a spanking. Take away someone's X-Box for a week, and watch how quickly the situation changes.

However, much younger children don't understand this concept. A quick
smack on the bum will merit their attention easily enough.

'Communication' is the operative word here. Chastising a child without reasoning, before and after the action is performed. is definitely a no-no. Once the spanking is over and done with, the action must follow through with an explanation, regarding the child's actions.


Where do parents receive this special training? Are parents required to be certified before spanking their child?


What a GREAT idea! As the saying goes, "Children are not born with Manuals." There are so many books on the market today, as well as classes that afford parents the proper means on how to raise children. Why not include this under a specialized field as well?


The author references God as instructing this. Where exactly does it state "Spare the rod, spoil the child" in the Bible? That phrase is not in the Bible, despite many sites that claim it does. None of them can actually point out the verse


I'll be more than happy to point this out to my opponent.

Can Christians tell God from Samuel Butler?


PROVERBS
13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Bartlett's says spare the rod is from a Samuel Butler poem, Hudibras:
Love is a boy by poets styl'd;
Then spare the rod, and spoil the child.


There it is, in plain text folks.

ThisSITE provides reasonable assertations to prop my stance, as well as distinguishing factors that seperate spanking from abuse.


Argument #1: Many psychological studies show that spanking is an improper form of discipline.

Counterpoint: Researchers John Lyons, Rachel Anderson and David Larson of the National Institute of Healthcare Research recently conducted a systematic review of the research literature on corporal punishment.[6] They found that 83 percent of the 132 identified articles published in
clinical and psychosocial journals were merely opinion-driven editorials, reviews or commentaries, devoid of new empirical findings. Moreover, most of the empirical studies were methodologically flawed by grouping the impact of abuse with spanking. The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use.


TLomon brought up a statement that I feel IS relevent to this debate.


Coincidentally enough, violent crime is decreasing more and more each year. How is it that a decrease in spankings is causing a direct correlation to a decreased crime rate?


Who is my opponent trying to kid? There is MORE crime within the last few decades than ever before.

My Example: There are children in 'gang wars' hurting/killing other children as we speak. Not all kids end up in 'gang wars' because they came from broken homes or have been 'spanked'. Some enter into this lifestyle due to 'peer pressure' alone, as well as many other reasons.

Bum Rap On Spanking:


Mr. Chigbo squarely hits the nail on the head in pointing out that those who teach that spanking engenders violence among youth are faced with a strange dichotomy: We spank less today than ever in our history yet violent crimes committed by youth have been steadily rising, even as we spank our children less! Could it be that not spanking our kids is leading to more violence?


Until my opponent can provide statistics to back up the fact that decreased spankings (cause?) a direct correlation to decreased crime rate, his statement can NOT be verified.


by not allowing spanking in the first place seems to be a more logical excuse.


An excuse? Hoh boy. My opponent's approach to the matter, implies that it would be better to forego spanking altogether, thus denoting an 'out of sight/out of mind' attitude. To simply sweep this issue under the rug, and in the hopes that it will never resurface again, is not denying ignorance. It is condoning it.

Thankyou.

Awaiting your response Sir.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I am a bit confused now. Earlier, you stated this:

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Also this site provides a means of 'effective spanking':
Use Loving Discipline When Spanking

This site specifically states this:

God has instructed parents to use a "rod," not the hand, when they need to lovingly correct their children with a spanking. (A rod is a flexible twig or stick.)

Yet you are now saying this:

Originally posted by TheDuckster
I gave clear cut examples ONLY, and in no way, did I mention that corporal punishment should disclude using one's hand. I will say for the record, that I do NOT condone the use of a 'rod', as this would contradict even my own words: "Excessive force."

It really appears you are still unsure about what is ok as spanking. Quote the Bible all you want, but the exact statement you are referring to is one of interpretation, and one you are specifically contradicting in your above statement, so obviously the Bible must be wrong by your view.

Since you have conceeded all other types of corporal punishment as being wrong, we shall stick to spanking. One more point from an earlier post, though. The concept of "parental time-out" stuck out to me, as the only place I have been able to find that reference is from professionals who believe spanking is wrong. Here are a few examples.

* How to Stop Spanking Your Kids
* How to help Families Stop Spanking

It simply isn't possible for someone to realize they are caught up in the moment while they are sliding from spanking to beating their child, using your definitions. The only way to prevent this is to not start it. You have provided no evidence that this is a plausible way for a parent caught up in the moment to act upon.

Originally posted by TheDuckster
There are so many books on the market today, as well as classes that afford parents the proper means on how to raise children.

You are correct in part of this. A lot of parents cannot afford the books and the classes, either in time or money. A hospital has a scorecard for the parents before they recommend parenting classes, but not all hospitals do this, and it is a recommendation, not a requirement.

Just because something has been "time honored" (effective is something I disagree with) doesn't make it right. Children used to be given the death penalty for cursing, being disrespectful, and rebellious to their parents. (General Laws & Liberties, 1641-1648.) That "time honored" law was to keep children in line. We got rid of that. We get rid of a lot of things that were once "time honored" because they were wrong: slavery, women's inability to vote, the idea that the Earth was flat.

It is time to get rid of spanking. It is curious that you judge some of my information as dated, yet you are referring to a "time-honored" tradition for support? Ok, the foundations of behaviorial psychology were developed in the 50s, which you have still been unable to refute, so let's take a look at some more recent findings.


From Why Stop Spanking?
Children who have been repeatedly threatened or hit:
* Develop low self-worth
* Fear adults
* Feel unloved and unwanted
* Exhibit a high degree of anxiety
* Struggle with feelings of helplessness
* Seek revenge against others
* Destroy property and break things belonging to others
* Tend to be more aggressive
* Learn hitting is a way to deal with anger and frustration


From Study: Spanking kids leads to long-term bad behavior
Researchers analyzed survey data from 807 mothers of children ages 6 to 9, taken in 1988 and 1990. They compared levels of antisocial behavior among spanked and unspanked children over that interval.

The more spanking a child received at the beginning of the study, the higher level of antisocial behavior at the end, according to the researchers.


From Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children
"Even minimal amounts of spanking can lead to an increased likelihood in antisocial behavior by children," says Grogan-Kaylor, whose findings are published in the September issue of Social Work Research.

I love the studies you offer.


From Spare the Rod?:
This study proves the point that quality of parenting is the chief determinant of favorable or unfavorable outcomes

If spanking or not spanking shows no difference, then why do it given the other potentional problems (by your own sources) that it can cause? In addition, I liked the part where they admittedly ignored 17% of the studies that showed new data they agreed showed a problem with spanking. This doesn't even count the other 83% also indicating a problem with spanking. So, one would have to ask, who is pushing opinion here?

The article by Okey Chigbo (a business major of all things) was amusing. I don't really need to hash out the problems with his article as Joan Durrant (Associate Professor, Department of Family Studies, University of Manitoba aka not a business major), does an excellent job of showing all of the errors made in his "analysis" for me on the same page. At least he was honest enough to post it, so I will give credit for him there. Even if he did try to explain it all away as "common sense".

The same findings come up again, and again, even from people who publically state that there is no harm - their findings show otherwise. If one statistical spike pops up, they run to the media bandwagon with this new proof to match their opinion. Consistently repeatable data overwelms the occassional bump. Take a look at all the data together, seperate out the opinion, and it is obvious there is a problem. This was studied in the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, as well as being studied in the past decade. The results point to the same conclusion: Spanking causes problems.

What is interesting is my opponent has chosen not to comment on the aspect of negative reinforcement (through corporal punishment) not working as a form of discipline. None of the studies she linked indicated this was an error. So, we have to asks ourselves, why would anyone logically use a false form of discipline?


From Why Stop Spanking?
One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of spanking is that we have “selective inattention.” We simply do not remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our culture believes spanking is “normal” and partly because many of us were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
My explanation that I had previously given suffices your questioning.

You stated:


It really appears you are still unsure about what is ok as spanking. Quote the Bible all you want, but the exact statement you are referring to is one of interpretation, and one you are specifically contradicting in your above statement, so obviously the Bible must be wrong by your view.


I can see that you are not only pulling straws, but in need of more rediculous, redundant, reiteration (nice alliteration of 'R's)

I'm putting another nickel in the jukebox to play the same song for you once more. Here we go again folks...

I stated:


I gave clear cut examples ONLY, and in no way, did I mention that corporal punishment should disclude using one's hand. I will say for the record, that I do NOT condone the use of a 'rod', as this would contradict even my own words: "Excessive force." Therefore, we will stick to the definition that I have supplied above, and additional support information that is in reference to that action only.


As one can clearly see by the above quote, these key points should stand out in your mind:
1. Generalized examples of corporal punishment.
2. I've included 'corporal punishment' to mean: Spanking
3. I've shown displeasure over my own posted information concerning 'rods'.
4. Self-correction; to include 'rods' equating with 'excessive force' (doesn't fall under the guidelines of 'loving chastisement'.

And now for the kickoff...

5. The last sentence CLEARLY states that I would stick to the definition supplied...."in reference to that action only - SPANKING.

The ball is high in the sky folks...it's sailing over the crowds...it's going..going..GONE.


It simply isn't possible for someone to realize they are caught up in the moment while they are sliding from spanking to beating their child, using your definitions. The only way to prevent this is to not start it. You have provided no evidence that this is a plausible way for a parent caught up in the moment to act upon.


Oh, but I have...and I have YOU to thank for. Remember your suggestion on 'certifying parents'? I think it is due time, that 'loving chastisement programs' (we'll call them LCP for short; nice ring to it?) be made available to parents. I've also mentioned in my last rebuttle: To simply sweep this issue under the rug, and in the hopes that it will never resurface again, is not denying ignorance. It is condoning it.

Is Spanking Acceptable?

A Father's View


Personally, where I stand is in between, but I lean more towards spanking than not spanking. And I am going to reveal to you guys that growing up my parents hardly ever spanked me or my sister. In fact I think I can count on one hand the amount of times I got paddled. In retrospect, I feel they were not firm enough with us and that if they had been more strict I may not have done some of the things I did.



You are correct in part of this. A lot of parents cannot afford the books and the classes, either in time or money. A hospital has a scorecard for the parents before they recommend parenting classes, but not all hospitals do this, and it is a recommendation, not a requirement.


As a parent, it is our obligation to find the best recourses out there, to raise our children to the 'best of our abilities'. Many parents cannot afford to purchase the best that mainstream has to offer, but a second-hand book at the Library would do the trick. Most libraries have free internet access. What about free internet cafes? Another mother? I hear alot of grandmothers provide GREAT advice. And guess what? It's free.


What is interesting is my opponent has chosen not to comment on the aspect of negative reinforcement (through corporal punishment) not working as a form of discipline. None of the studies she linked indicated this was an error.


I chose to debate the CON side of the equation remember? We have already established the fact that I'm advocating 'loving chastisement'. Not abuse. Not torture. Facts were clearly and concisely presented to you and our readers, in order to better understand the issues surrounding 'spankings'.

Thankyou.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by The Vagabond]



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Closing Argument

My name is Turlo Lomon (aka TLomon), and I have presented the pro side of "Corporal punishment is never the best way to correct a child's bad behavior". If you review the previous commentary, you will see that my opponent has conceeded every aspect of corporal punishment with the exception of spanking. So, what did we learn about spanking?

If you take the time to review each of the statistical studies presented, you will find that a vast majority of them point at a link to antisocial aggression. The ones that support spanking have also shown links to antisocial aggression, although at a lower level then the majority of reports made. The biggest proponents of spanking are concerned about the physical wellbeing of children, and are completely discounting the emotial side. The fact remains, all of the reports showed a link, the only debate point was how much.

The biggest determining factor in a child's discipline is the family structure. This is with or without spankings. What this clearly shows is that given the inherent risks of spanking by the above mentioned reports, we as society should be looking at alternative ways to discipline our children.

None of the reports contradicted this.

We have the potentional problem of spanking turning into child abuse. My opponent suggested that parents take a time out when the spanking gets too serious, however I question the plausibility of this. The only evidence to suggest parental time outs points at taking the time out before any spanking occurs preventing the need for spanking in the first place.

The Bible supports the use a "a rod" on your child, according to some views. However, my opponent would like us to accept the examples of support for use of the rod while discounting the portion that she considers child abuse. You can't take one without the other if you wish to use it for support, so we are both in agreement that the religious interpretation of discipline is child abuse. I am still confused why she is using this in her argument.

I am glad to see we are in agreement on requiring parents to obtain certification. The problem is, our society is a long way from allowing the government to impose their requirements on our parenting. This will not be happening anytime soon, yet the problem is present now, and is affecting the youth of the future.

There is nothing "time-honored" about a practice that is wrong. We grow as society, and must leave portions of our past behind us to move forward. Should we continue to live in the stone age because once it was "time-honored"? I think not.

It has been proven that positive reinforcement works better then punishment and negative reinforcement. None of the reports contradicted this as well. If a child is starving for attention, spanking will not help, as the child will repeat behavior needed to obtain a spanking since this is a form of attention. If a family has reached the point where spanking is needed, then there are other problems in the household that should be addressed.

Spankings are a symptom of a larger problem, not the cure. Eliminate the spankings and the problems will become more apparent, and as such, a cure that much closer. Even our society is grasping for a solution, as reality TV shows such as Nanny 911 show alternative ways to reach a stable and satisfying home life, for all involved (including the children).

Let's give it to them. Stop spanking now.



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I want to firstly thank TLomon for providing a thought-provoking battle of the wits. It was indeed a pleasure Sir.

****

CLOSING STATEMENT:

I have debated certain aspects of corporal punishment, and have shown one in particular, as to not being debauched - Spanking.

This has been proven to be acceptable, via safety measures and limitations, and does NOT include 'excessive force', as well as performed in a 'loving manner'.

The problem with my position is, there will be those who will misjudge my stance; mainly due to the fact, that opposite views regarding corporal punishment are not sensitive to compromising positions.

My rigorous debating against my opponent has included many positive forms of chastisement, which might propel others to develop pre-conceived notions, that I condone 'beating/abusing' children for their misconducts. Perish the thought.

From the onset of my debating, my opponent has decreed that corporal punishment should not take place...ever.

I've looked hard and long to reveal to my opponent, and you readers, that his standpoint is baseless and empirical, even though his case provides evidence, showing that, repeated and harsh physical punishment is indeed, very wrong.

This is what he focused on ONLY, and thus eliminated his chance to explore other potentially positive venues.

As the saying goes: "It pays to keep an open mind about things."

Corporal punishment is sometimes justified, and yet, I have also disclosed the fact, that I do NOT in any way, condone instruments of chastisement - 'rod', or any other physical devises.

These particular physical means, would follow under the definition of 'excessive force'.

I understand the apprehension surrounding my position, and it is congruous with my pragmatic stand.

Final Summary:

Many of the arguments presented about corporal punishment remain, at least in part, on empirical questions. They are sensitive in nature, and arduous to mediate.

My comprehension of empirical data, to the best of my ability, is not enough to prop my opponent's acute view: "Corporal punishment should'nt be allowed."

Regardless, I believe it is very necessary to keep our minds open to the bounties of extended future research, and allow ourselves leeway; to remodel our thoughts and behaviors to extend beyond preconceived notions and biases.

This topic has NOT run it's course yet. Not by any means.

I was once asked: "What is the biggest room in the world?"

The Answer:

The room for 'Improvement'.

And so shall it be with future studies with these issues


Thankyou.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
This has been a close debate, but alas there can be only one winner.

The Duckster is victorious.

Judges Comments:


TheDuckster came right out of the gate in her opening, taking issue with the definition provided by TLomon. She also introduces the phrasing 'Loving Chastisement'. This had potential for a very solid foundation to her position and allowed her to refute TLomon's attempt to associate torture within the debate. She never follows through with illuminating her concept, but successfully retains its' unfettered use...

TheDuckster took the First Round.


TLomon came back with what I felt to be his strongest post of the debate. The introduction to BF Skinner was well presented and lead him to state this...



Corporal punishment only teaches a child to avoid corporal punishment. It does not teach them correct behavior.


This established that the reason for corporal punishment was to change behaviour. It also stated, in tandem with other aspects of his post, that corporal punishment does not teach.

TheDuckster did little to combat this gaining of ground in her next post and instead nonchalantly dismissed it as antiquated. She did provide sources, however, it was a perfunctory acknowledgement that basically sought to ride on the coattails of the ACP. I would have liked to see her go a bit more into the why her opponents source was inadequate and fill in those holes with her own source and ideas. Instead, she went to the questions...and attempted to use blame(lack of respect for authority) as a valid reason for her stance...which allowed TLomon's points to go more or less unchallenged, unfortunately.

The Second Round went to TLomon.

In the Third round, I liked TLomon's 'discrediting' of the ACP by using the AMA...but did not see where the amount of attention spent on "The Rod" was warranted. Indeed, he had already allowed the continued existence of "Loving Chastisement", which implicitly reject any notion of abuse or negative intention.. He also concluded that parents are likely angry at the behaviour of the offensive child and that their own emotional response could impact their capacity for fair and constructive treatment.... his return to his strength, the sources and stats was a good direction, but he ended up essentially stating that the support for his opponent was refuted by a source that supported his position....there was no interaction with examples or concepts, just a hashing of numbers entangled in the emminent 'he said, she said."

TheDuckster finally found the arguement for TLomon's quote above....



However, much younger children don't understand this concept. A quick smack on the bum will merit their attention easily enough.


If teaching is the goal of parenting, but it is impossible in some fashion to communicate effectively to the child, then spanking may be the route to take. She also slammed the door firmly shut on TLomon's attempt to equate a decrease in violence with the decrease in corporal Punishment/spanking.

Third Round went to TheDuckster.

TLomon started out quite weak in his next post, by attempting to put TheDuckster as a weapon wielding punisher. Not that the tactic couldn't have worked, merely the tactic was not the centerpiece of his arguement and took too much time/words from what could have been a his needed edge...as this next quote really sets him up nicely...



It simply isn't possible for someone to realize they are caught up in the moment while they are sliding from spanking to beating their child, using your definitions.


...though TheDuckster came through this time, on cue, with a more than adequate response...



Oh, but I have...and I have YOU to thank for. Remember your suggestion on 'certifying parents'? I think it is due time, that 'loving chastisement programs' (we'll call them LCP for short; nice ring to it?) be made available to parents.


She won this round with the following....



We have already established the fact that I'm advocating 'loving chastisement'. Not abuse. Not torture.


She stipulated the definition that would be used in her opening and reminded TLomon(and the audience) of the fact that he allowed that one to slip by. In one sentence, TheDuckster comletely distanced her position from many negative connotations that inherently come with the topic.

She also successfully took the last round, by stating her position succintly and defending it. TLomon had all of the stats, all of the support, but in the end, I think that he let The Duckster get away with too much as well as he came a little too late with what could have been a great angle/direction for his position...



If a family has reached the point where spanking is needed, then there are other problems in the household that should be addressed.


I would have liked to have seen more on this line of thought and as well was looking for alternatives to spanking...which never came...


I have to give this debate to TheDuckster......

This was a well fought debate and one that demonstrated to gifted individuals getting there feet wet with the process. I know that we are going to see great things from each in the coming tournament.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I thought this was a very good debate, and I think the judges did an excellent job in explaining the reasons behind their decision. It would be nice to see more of this.






top topics



 
5

log in

join