Dear fellow ATSers, friends of debating, ranters (such as me, sometimes), trolls and anonymous lurkers and especially semperfortis and skeptic1 who
make this debate possible, I invite you to a journey of exploring the faults of human behaviour that have still to this day been adapted and widely
accepted by what I beleive is the result of uneducated parents (not uneducated in generell, but unadecuated in parenting) and the misshaps „slight
of hand”.
Smacking a child is abuse which I will demonstrate (verbally) in this debate. First of all lets look at this two words first as defined by one of many
online-thesauruses.
- smacking:
Reference 1: thesaurus.reference.com...
- abuse:
Reference 2: thesaurus.reference.com...
lets add a third one (limit of references in opeing statement reached)
- child:
Reference 3: thesaurus.reference.com...
So we have now, hitting, wrong use and a very young person. I am sure you can argue to use another thesaurus, but it will still boil down to the same
perception and definition.
In my oppinion, the word smacking is just a play with words. A downplaying of a word. Belittleing of the word hitting. Therefore let me point out,
smacking is hitting.
I like the definition of abuse in this thesaurus. Wrong use. As the definition states clearly. Wrong, wrong and wrong again!!!
And most importantly, the victim in this debated scenario. A young person. Maybe somebody that hasn't learned everything in life yet. Maybe somebody
that needs a leading not a hitting hand. Maybe somebody in need of a teacher not a tyrrant. But definately a person much younger than yourself.
Now to the final part of my opening statement.
I stand firm on my beleive that smacking a child is still a bad form of expressing frustration and desperation by parents that are not capable of
communicating verbally with their children. This is not the childs fault. It is clearly a badly inherited form of social conditioning that will go on
and on forever if not stopped now. I also beleive that many of the worlds problems today would be handled differently by a generation that never
experienced this ill behaviour of social injustice upon children.
As to what degree this abuse should be outlawed is probably worth of another debate, but I beleive that an educational process of the abusing parent
should be imminent.
I hereby close my rather short opening statement as I like to keep some aces up my sleeve for my three replies. Especially the 5 or even more
questions I have are something to look forward to be answered and hopefully can be answered with a clear concious not to lose any nights sleep over
it.
Thank you all for listening (reading).
Regards
Benarius
P.S.: Please forgive my spelling and grammar. Both makes, me and my PC are of non-english background and my spellchecker in OpenOffice isn't
installed. Btw. This is my first debate ever. U2U's are welcomed to help me improve. Thank you.
Challenge Match: Benarius vs skeptic1: "If You Do That Again, You Will Get Such A Smack!!!", page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 07:20 AM by skeptic1
First off, I'd like to thank Semporfortis for setting up this debate. Second, thank you, Benarius, for suggesting such an interesting topic.
To the readers and judges, I hope you find this intriguing and intelligent.
Like my opponent, let's start off with three definitions:
1. Smack: to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object.
2. Spank: to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment.
3. Abuse: (verb) to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way; (noun) bad or improper treatment; maltreatment
Source
And, everyone has a pretty good idea what a child is.
I included spanking in my definition list due to the fact that, in other countries, “smacking” seems to have the same meaning that “spanking” does in the US. Here in the States, spanking is a controversial topic, with some insisting it is abuse and others insisting that it is a parent’s prerogative as long as the “abuse” line is not crossed.
In my mind, there is a huge chasm between smacking or spanking a child and actual physical abuse.
When I was a child, I would get a smack or a swat on the bottom to get my attention in a physical manner. A swat or a smack, in my life, was never meant to hurt me, but to physically get my attention to point out that I had done something improper or wrong. It wasn't administered to inflict physical harm; it wasn't abuse. It was a quick and effective way to get my attention and stop me from what I was doing.
Is smacking or spanking abuse? Some countries have rallied against it, spending millions on anti-smacking (anti-spanking) campaigns and some countries have banned smacking (spanking) altogether. What has that led to?
In Australia, an advocacy group spent $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars on an anti-smacking (anti-spanking) campaign:
Source
Sweden even tried to ban smacking (spanking) in 1979. What did that lead to?
Source
I won’t argue semantics with my opponent. Smacking (spanking) is hitting. I will argue, however, the actual meaning of the word and how it is perceived. Smacking (spanking) is not abuse for most parents and for most children. Smacking (spanking) is a form of physical discipline, not an outlet of frustration or a form of desperation. Smacking (spanking) is a form of parental authority. Smacking (spanking) is a parent’s choice.
Smacking (spanking) is not physical abuse. There is a definite gap between smacking (spanking) a child and physically abusing them.
In closing, smacking (spanking) was never the sensation it is today until the era of political correctness. My grandparents were smacked (spanked) by their parents. My grandparents smacked (spanked) my parents. On occasion, my parents smacked (spanked) me. It got my attention, made me a bit uncomfortable for a few hours, but did not scar me for life, did not damage me for life, and did not strike me (pardon the pun) as abuse later in life. But, today, in the light of media sensationalism and political correctness, a parent’s choice to use physical discipline on their child is frowned upon….no matter what form of discipline is used. In some places, a slap on the wrist is viewed with the same disgust as beating a child with a belt.
It isn’t the same thing; it doesn’t even come close.
Socratic Question #1
Why is smacking (spanking) so demonized today, when in the past, in our parent's generation, it was standard operating procedure; why is something that was acceptable for them (and, society approved) suddenly taboo now?
Socratic Question #2
Who is society or any government, for that matter, to tell parents how they can physically discipline their child(ren) as long as the punishment is not meant to physically damage, hurt, or harm the child; who are they to tell a parent that they cannot smack (spank)?
To the readers and judges, I hope you find this intriguing and intelligent.
Like my opponent, let's start off with three definitions:
1. Smack: to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object.
2. Spank: to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment.
3. Abuse: (verb) to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way; (noun) bad or improper treatment; maltreatment
Source
And, everyone has a pretty good idea what a child is.
I included spanking in my definition list due to the fact that, in other countries, “smacking” seems to have the same meaning that “spanking” does in the US. Here in the States, spanking is a controversial topic, with some insisting it is abuse and others insisting that it is a parent’s prerogative as long as the “abuse” line is not crossed.
In my mind, there is a huge chasm between smacking or spanking a child and actual physical abuse.
When I was a child, I would get a smack or a swat on the bottom to get my attention in a physical manner. A swat or a smack, in my life, was never meant to hurt me, but to physically get my attention to point out that I had done something improper or wrong. It wasn't administered to inflict physical harm; it wasn't abuse. It was a quick and effective way to get my attention and stop me from what I was doing.
Is smacking or spanking abuse? Some countries have rallied against it, spending millions on anti-smacking (anti-spanking) campaigns and some countries have banned smacking (spanking) altogether. What has that led to?
In Australia, an advocacy group spent $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars on an anti-smacking (anti-spanking) campaign:
Source
While such campaigns are meant to lessen child abuse - a legitimate concern - they end up working against parental authority: the ability of parents to control and discipline their own children. This is because these campaigns effectively equate corporal punishment with abuse, or at least imply that smacking is counterproductive and leads to child abuse. While we should all be concerned about child abuse, we should also be concerned about those who are unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between child abuse and physical discipline. We already have laws on the books against assault, abuse, and so on. But smacking is not abuse.
Sweden even tried to ban smacking (spanking) in 1979. What did that lead to?
Source
Part of the reason for the ban was that it was hoped that it would reduce child abuse. OK, so what does the evidence tell us? What can we learn from the Swedish experiment? In 1996 an important study into child abuse in Sweden was published. It found, among other things, that Swedish data indicated a 489% increase in child abuse statistics from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors.
I won’t argue semantics with my opponent. Smacking (spanking) is hitting. I will argue, however, the actual meaning of the word and how it is perceived. Smacking (spanking) is not abuse for most parents and for most children. Smacking (spanking) is a form of physical discipline, not an outlet of frustration or a form of desperation. Smacking (spanking) is a form of parental authority. Smacking (spanking) is a parent’s choice.
Smacking (spanking) is not physical abuse. There is a definite gap between smacking (spanking) a child and physically abusing them.
In closing, smacking (spanking) was never the sensation it is today until the era of political correctness. My grandparents were smacked (spanked) by their parents. My grandparents smacked (spanked) my parents. On occasion, my parents smacked (spanked) me. It got my attention, made me a bit uncomfortable for a few hours, but did not scar me for life, did not damage me for life, and did not strike me (pardon the pun) as abuse later in life. But, today, in the light of media sensationalism and political correctness, a parent’s choice to use physical discipline on their child is frowned upon….no matter what form of discipline is used. In some places, a slap on the wrist is viewed with the same disgust as beating a child with a belt.
It isn’t the same thing; it doesn’t even come close.
Socratic Question #1
Why is smacking (spanking) so demonized today, when in the past, in our parent's generation, it was standard operating procedure; why is something that was acceptable for them (and, society approved) suddenly taboo now?
Socratic Question #2
Who is society or any government, for that matter, to tell parents how they can physically discipline their child(ren) as long as the punishment is not meant to physically damage, hurt, or harm the child; who are they to tell a parent that they cannot smack (spank)?
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 12:40 PM by skeptic1
In response to the answers to my first set of Socratic Questions, my opponent cites the fact that children don't like to get spanked and never
approved of getting spanked.
My response: Well, duh. No child likes to be punished for something they did wrong. They don't like to get caught doing something they shouldn't, and they don't like the consequences....no matter what they are. Parents are concerned with teaching their children right from wrong and punishing the child(ren) if and when they do something wrong. Parents shouldn't be concerned with whether the child approves of or like the punishment. It is no deterrent if the child enjoys the punishment.
Punishment is meant to keep the child from repeating the erroneous behavior. Punishment is meant to keep the child from making mistakes and doing bad things. Punishment is not meant to be enjoyed or approved of by the child(ren).
My opponent also states that the government and/or society should be defenders of the weak. On this we agree. We also agree that it is up to the parents not to abuse their children. Like I stated in my opening, there is a world of difference between spanking a child and physically abusing a child.
On to my opponent’s main points in their first response....
No, this is about the action. The action itself, spanking, has become extremely demonized in this day and age. Parents should have the freedom to punish their child physically as long as that punishment does not cross the line into abuse. Spanking is not abuse. It does not equal "beating a child".
Source
You misunderstood my use of "standard operating procedure". When our parents were growing up and their parents were growing up, spanking was standard operating procedure when it came to punishment. There weren't such politically correct things as "time outs" and "taking away your cell phone, internet, and TV". They were spanked.
Source? Proof? Or, is that just your general opinion?
Dismiss them? Dismiss the fact that the government is telling parents how to properly raise their children? Dismiss the fact that actual child abuse (physical) increased almost 500% after a country outlawed spanking?
Spanking works. Physical abuse doesn't. Studies have found that spanking is necessary in some situations for some children (source).
A controlled parent who uses spanking to help "train" their child(ren) is not likely to have a spanking turn into an out of control beating. You were correct when you said it was up to the parents.
Socratic Question Answers
1. In my mind, spanking is appropriate from around the age of 2 up until the child is 9 to 10. And, some experts agree.
Source
2. No. I have no ill-will towards my parents for how they chose to punish me. I was the one that screwed up, and I deserved to be punished. And, since I view spanking as punishment, not abuse, I don't look back and wish for something different.
3. I think every parent needs to take parenting classes (some more than others). Parents should learn effective ways to discipline their child(ren), but nothing should take away the parent's option to use physical discipline as long as the child is not physically hurt/bruised.
4. And, no. No one should be allowed to spank your child except for you. Parental discipline and physical discipline is the parent's territory...no one else’s. That's why I feel like outside entities should stay out of the spanking debate.
Socratic Question #1
1. Since you made the point of pointing out that children "never actually liked" getting spanked, how will a child learn from punishment that they enjoy?
Socratic Question #2
2. If a swat on the bottom isn't appropriate and is abuse in your eyes, then how do you reason with a 2 or 3 year old who continually breaks the rules? Their language skills and decision-making skills aren't that of an older child.
Socratic Question #3
3. Is there ever an offense that a child makes (or multiple offenses of the same thing, like running into the street to play in traffic after you've told them umpteen times not to do that) that would warrant a smack in your mind?
My response: Well, duh. No child likes to be punished for something they did wrong. They don't like to get caught doing something they shouldn't, and they don't like the consequences....no matter what they are. Parents are concerned with teaching their children right from wrong and punishing the child(ren) if and when they do something wrong. Parents shouldn't be concerned with whether the child approves of or like the punishment. It is no deterrent if the child enjoys the punishment.
Punishment is meant to keep the child from repeating the erroneous behavior. Punishment is meant to keep the child from making mistakes and doing bad things. Punishment is not meant to be enjoyed or approved of by the child(ren).
My opponent also states that the government and/or society should be defenders of the weak. On this we agree. We also agree that it is up to the parents not to abuse their children. Like I stated in my opening, there is a world of difference between spanking a child and physically abusing a child.
On to my opponent’s main points in their first response....
The opposition uses expressions such as demonized spanking, where it is simple and clear that it's not the action that's demonized but the executor of the action.
No, this is about the action. The action itself, spanking, has become extremely demonized in this day and age. Parents should have the freedom to punish their child physically as long as that punishment does not cross the line into abuse. Spanking is not abuse. It does not equal "beating a child".
Source
An open-handed single "swat" to a child's clothed bottom is not the same thing as a closed fist to the face, a humiliating experience of repeated "swats" to a child's bare-bottom in public, or any other kind of "discipline" that leaves a bruise.
I also really got stuck by the opponents expression of „standard operating procedure”. Let me point out that we are talking about a human being here. And that is what many parents seem to forget.
You misunderstood my use of "standard operating procedure". When our parents were growing up and their parents were growing up, spanking was standard operating procedure when it came to punishment. There weren't such politically correct things as "time outs" and "taking away your cell phone, internet, and TV". They were spanked.
Most spankings do happen out of frustration and desperation.
Source? Proof? Or, is that just your general opinion?
I need to mention that I did read the two sources (articles) supplied by you and simply dismiss them for the fact that tax dollars are always somehow allocated to be spent and used because they need to be used. I don't beleive in statistics or the numerization of human experimentation as they only reflect a small amount of the whole and give you a falsified picture.
Dismiss them? Dismiss the fact that the government is telling parents how to properly raise their children? Dismiss the fact that actual child abuse (physical) increased almost 500% after a country outlawed spanking?
Spanking works. Physical abuse doesn't. Studies have found that spanking is necessary in some situations for some children (source).
A controlled parent who uses spanking to help "train" their child(ren) is not likely to have a spanking turn into an out of control beating. You were correct when you said it was up to the parents.
Socratic Question Answers
1. In my mind, spanking is appropriate from around the age of 2 up until the child is 9 to 10. And, some experts agree.
Source
Rosemond does not advocate spanking children after age 9 or 10, as it is not effective. Further, parents who spank their teenagers likely have not established clear discipline prior to that point, and their teens are likely engaging in significant antisocial behavior. Spanking has no effect, and likely does cause significant resentment. It is not the spanking that has caused the problems; however, it is the history of inadequate or ineffective parenting.
2. No. I have no ill-will towards my parents for how they chose to punish me. I was the one that screwed up, and I deserved to be punished. And, since I view spanking as punishment, not abuse, I don't look back and wish for something different.
3. I think every parent needs to take parenting classes (some more than others). Parents should learn effective ways to discipline their child(ren), but nothing should take away the parent's option to use physical discipline as long as the child is not physically hurt/bruised.
4. And, no. No one should be allowed to spank your child except for you. Parental discipline and physical discipline is the parent's territory...no one else’s. That's why I feel like outside entities should stay out of the spanking debate.
Socratic Question #1
1. Since you made the point of pointing out that children "never actually liked" getting spanked, how will a child learn from punishment that they enjoy?
Socratic Question #2
2. If a swat on the bottom isn't appropriate and is abuse in your eyes, then how do you reason with a 2 or 3 year old who continually breaks the rules? Their language skills and decision-making skills aren't that of an older child.
Socratic Question #3
3. Is there ever an offense that a child makes (or multiple offenses of the same thing, like running into the street to play in traffic after you've told them umpteen times not to do that) that would warrant a smack in your mind?
reply posted on 8-2-2009 @ 01:42 PM by skeptic1
As to my opponent's answers to my Socratic Questions....
So, my opponent concedes that it is really difficult to verbally punish a toddler with a "talking to". There is a vast difference between the language capacity of a toddler and that of an adult. In fact, I would think it would be close to impossible to reason with a 2 year old in a way that the toddler got a lasting lesson from the talking to. A swat on the bottom would certainly get their attention and make them realize that they had done something wrong. It wouldn't hurt and it would teach them a lesson.
So, repetition and patience assures that a child will not repeat the bad behavior again or make the same mistake again. Doesn't seem to work, though, when the parent has to correct the same bad behavior over and over and over and over again. Once again, we fall into the trap of "what does the child understand?" What will get their attention. A swat on the bottom gets their physical attention, makes them uncomfortable, and shows them that if they don't want to get that swat again then they need to avoid performing the bad action again.
No, you can't say that. Parents are the center of their child's world. They learn almost everything in their formative years from their parents and what their parents allow them to be exposed to. Spanking is not evil; it is not abuse. It is a tool that parents can employ to help discipline their children to help them learn right from wrong. That is the parents job....training their children.
Now, onto my opponent's main points.....
Discipline: punishment inflicted by way of correction and training
Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc
Source
They look to be pretty much the same thing to me. And, they are the prerogative of the parents. It is at their discretion.
Not always. Depends on the type of praise. If a parent rewards good behavior with a treat or a toy or a special privilege, then that is the same thing as bribery.
Socratic Question Answers
1. No. It also isn't shown to lead to abusive behavior towards partners later in life, either.
Source
2. No. Just because a child was not spanked by their parents in no way ensures that said child will not use physical discipline on their children later in life.
3. My grandchildren are not my children. If I saw my children spank their kids, well, then, that is their prerogative. If I saw my children abuse their kids, well, then, I'd have a lot to say and several phone calls to make. Spanking is not abuse.
4. If I saw a stranger on the street spanking their child, then I would do nothing. It is their child and their prerogative. If I saw a stranger abusing their child on the street, then I'd step in and call the cops. Spanking is not abuse.
5. Yes....in many cases. Especially with young children.
Source
Socratic Question 1
What effects in society today can you definitely attribute to parents spanking their children?
Socratic Question 2
What do you think would happen, given the results from the Swedish ban on smacking cited earlier in the debate, if other developed countries were to ban spanking and take that choice away from parents?
Answer #1: You can't. But you can try with the language capacity of a child.
So, my opponent concedes that it is really difficult to verbally punish a toddler with a "talking to". There is a vast difference between the language capacity of a toddler and that of an adult. In fact, I would think it would be close to impossible to reason with a 2 year old in a way that the toddler got a lasting lesson from the talking to. A swat on the bottom would certainly get their attention and make them realize that they had done something wrong. It wouldn't hurt and it would teach them a lesson.
Answer #2: Repetition, consistency, patience. It's a lot to expect from a child to learn something at once. Oh, well. When it happens twice. Try again. You're the adult. The role-model. How can you expect a child to be self-dsiciplined if you give up yourself at that stage?
So, repetition and patience assures that a child will not repeat the bad behavior again or make the same mistake again. Doesn't seem to work, though, when the parent has to correct the same bad behavior over and over and over and over again. Once again, we fall into the trap of "what does the child understand?" What will get their attention. A swat on the bottom gets their physical attention, makes them uncomfortable, and shows them that if they don't want to get that swat again then they need to avoid performing the bad action again.
Answer #3: No. Not at all. A child can turn from good to bad or from bad to good at any stage during their life cycles. Too many influences we have no control over it. But at least, if you don't smack, you can at least say, they didn't learn that from me.
No, you can't say that. Parents are the center of their child's world. They learn almost everything in their formative years from their parents and what their parents allow them to be exposed to. Spanking is not evil; it is not abuse. It is a tool that parents can employ to help discipline their children to help them learn right from wrong. That is the parents job....training their children.
Now, onto my opponent's main points.....
It seems to me that far too many parents misunderstand the concepts and differences between discipline and punishment
Discipline: punishment inflicted by way of correction and training
Punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc
Source
They look to be pretty much the same thing to me. And, they are the prerogative of the parents. It is at their discretion.
My opponent states: ”Praising good behavior works; some of us call it bribery, which works as well” Praising and bribery are two completly different things.
Not always. Depends on the type of praise. If a parent rewards good behavior with a treat or a toy or a special privilege, then that is the same thing as bribery.
Socratic Question Answers
1. No. It also isn't shown to lead to abusive behavior towards partners later in life, either.
Source
Although some people who abuse their partners were themselves abused as children, this does not mean that being spanked, as opposed to abused as a child, will lead to abusive behavior as an adult. He notes that most men from his generation were spanked as children, but the majority did not grow up to be abusive toward their partners.
2. No. Just because a child was not spanked by their parents in no way ensures that said child will not use physical discipline on their children later in life.
3. My grandchildren are not my children. If I saw my children spank their kids, well, then, that is their prerogative. If I saw my children abuse their kids, well, then, I'd have a lot to say and several phone calls to make. Spanking is not abuse.
4. If I saw a stranger on the street spanking their child, then I would do nothing. It is their child and their prerogative. If I saw a stranger abusing their child on the street, then I'd step in and call the cops. Spanking is not abuse.
5. Yes....in many cases. Especially with young children.
Source
He explains that with a toddler age 24 months or so, a quick spank on the butt, followed by the reprimand (i.e., "No, I will not let you spit at me"), then by the consequence is effective. For a young child, placing the child in a chair with the warning, "You will stay there until I say you can get up" followed by taking a step backward, waiting one second, and then telling the child, "Now get up" is sufficient. This catches the child's attention, provides a rule, provides and consequence, and established that you are in charge.
Socratic Question 1
What effects in society today can you definitely attribute to parents spanking their children?
Socratic Question 2
What do you think would happen, given the results from the Swedish ban on smacking cited earlier in the debate, if other developed countries were to ban spanking and take that choice away from parents?
reply posted on 12-2-2009 @ 12:40 PM by skeptic1
Closing Statement
....I am posting my closing now due to the fact that my opponent has not come back to this debate for the past 3 days. I would prefer not to have to do this, but after much discussion, it was decided that 3 days was a good amount of time to allow my opponent time to return to this debate. If the Moderator of the debate decides to allow my opponent more time to come back and present their closing, that is fine with me. If not, then whatever happens, happens......
No one argues that children should not be abused...physically, emotionally, sexually, or mentally. Children should not be slapped. Children should not be punched. Children should not be kicked. Children should not be shoved. Children should not be hurt. Children should not be abused.
But, spanking is not abuse.
What is spanking, again? According to the definition, it is to strike with an open hand on the buttocks in punishment.
Spanking is a form of parental discipline. Spanking is a way to train children. Spanking is a way to show children that there are consequences to inappropriate actions. Spanking is an immediate way to get a child's attention, point out the mistake they have made, and hopefully teach them not to repeat that mistake.
But, spanking is not abuse.
My opponent has alluded to spanking leading to more violence in society, saying that we see the effects more today than in the past, when spanking was the punishment of choice. Well, not according to US statistics:
Source
My opponent has stated that talking to a child is more productive than spanking. Well, how do you talk to and reason with a child of 2 or 3? They don't speak on our level and we don't do a good job of communicating on their level, either. But, a swat on the bottom seems to bridge the communication gap....and seems to get the child's attention, "telling" them that they have done something wrong and not to do it again.
My opponent has stated that children do not approve of spanking. Well, what punishment do they approve of? Punishment is not to be enjoyed by the child. Punishment is to teach a lesson and point out incorrect or bad behavior. Spanking gets their immediate attention and shows that there are consequences to actions.
My opponent has stated that talking, consistency, patience, and repetition are better teaching and punishment techniques than spanking. That doesn't always work. It doesn't work with small children due to the communication/language barrier.
Spanking should not be the only form of discipline that a parent employs with their children. But, they should not be demonized for spanking. Most do not spank to hurt, but to teach and discipline. The politically correct society we live in today should not be able to twist a physical form of punishment that is not used to hurt a child into a horrific form of physical abuse.
Because, spanking is not abuse.
....I am posting my closing now due to the fact that my opponent has not come back to this debate for the past 3 days. I would prefer not to have to do this, but after much discussion, it was decided that 3 days was a good amount of time to allow my opponent time to return to this debate. If the Moderator of the debate decides to allow my opponent more time to come back and present their closing, that is fine with me. If not, then whatever happens, happens......
No one argues that children should not be abused...physically, emotionally, sexually, or mentally. Children should not be slapped. Children should not be punched. Children should not be kicked. Children should not be shoved. Children should not be hurt. Children should not be abused.
But, spanking is not abuse.
What is spanking, again? According to the definition, it is to strike with an open hand on the buttocks in punishment.
Spanking is a form of parental discipline. Spanking is a way to train children. Spanking is a way to show children that there are consequences to inappropriate actions. Spanking is an immediate way to get a child's attention, point out the mistake they have made, and hopefully teach them not to repeat that mistake.
But, spanking is not abuse.
My opponent has alluded to spanking leading to more violence in society, saying that we see the effects more today than in the past, when spanking was the punishment of choice. Well, not according to US statistics:
Source
A careful look at U.S. crime statistics also refutes the idea that spanking equals more societal violence. Between 1985 and 1993, violent crime actually decreased by 20 per cent among males 25 or older, while it increased 65 per cent for males 18 to 24 and by 165 per cent for 14- to 17-year-old males. So those who grew up in a period of more spanking were, and are, less violent than younger people who have grown up in a period of declining approval and practice of spanking.
My opponent has stated that talking to a child is more productive than spanking. Well, how do you talk to and reason with a child of 2 or 3? They don't speak on our level and we don't do a good job of communicating on their level, either. But, a swat on the bottom seems to bridge the communication gap....and seems to get the child's attention, "telling" them that they have done something wrong and not to do it again.
My opponent has stated that children do not approve of spanking. Well, what punishment do they approve of? Punishment is not to be enjoyed by the child. Punishment is to teach a lesson and point out incorrect or bad behavior. Spanking gets their immediate attention and shows that there are consequences to actions.
My opponent has stated that talking, consistency, patience, and repetition are better teaching and punishment techniques than spanking. That doesn't always work. It doesn't work with small children due to the communication/language barrier.
Spanking should not be the only form of discipline that a parent employs with their children. But, they should not be demonized for spanking. Most do not spank to hurt, but to teach and discipline. The politically correct society we live in today should not be able to twist a physical form of punishment that is not used to hurt a child into a horrific form of physical abuse.
Because, spanking is not abuse.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
