Debate Battle: Should parents be allowed to punish their children physically?

[Slik]

This is a debate battle between Brendan + Zykev2 and Trey + myself. Please do not post in this thread, unless specifically told you are allowed to otherwise it will be considered spam and will be deleted.

The topic is 'Should parents be allowed to punish their children physically'. Zykev2 and Brendan will be debating the con side, Trey and myself will be debating the pro side. Each team will have 6 posts, 3 posts each and at the end of the debate I will add a poll for you to vote on the winning team.

I flipped a coin, heads was pro and tails was con to begin, con won the toss.

Good luck.

[Toonshorty]

So if I post saying parents do not exist will that break the debate?

[Smudge]

Do not post on this thread unless your name is mentioned in the OP. This is a debate between the members stated in the Original Post. Let me know over MSN if anyone is attempting to ruin possibly a good debate between 'intelligent' members. Thanks.

[Zykev2]

Debate Response: 1

Thank you and good luck to my opponents, for my introduction to the debate I'm going to provide my basic synopsis of the con side for myself.


This topic brings into account a lot of different aspects to the meaning "punish." Along with the context its used in is the severity, cause, and physical assertiveness in which a parental figure uses the physical punishment on them. Hitting, striking, and even harsh verbal reprimands can harm a child, hitting them specifically can introduce a whole array of potentially harmful side effects including obviously Physical, along with Legal and psychological problems. Striking the child as a means of teaching them right from wrong is, well just wrong. When a parent introduces Corporal punishment as a means of trying to correct a child's behavior it can potentially harm the child psychologically for life and research has been around to back up this claim. At an early age using physical punishments on a young child is teaching them the only way to express your anger or frustration for another person is to physically correct it by means of hitting or striking another human being. In fact a study conducted by Eric P. Slade which he states "spanking frequency is positively associated with the probability of having significant behavior problems four years later." When hitting a child you give them no means to correct the situation; while in fear they have no thought of how to correct it or prevent the mishap instead the child is filled with intense emotions whether it be sadness, pain, anger, or guilt. I propose there are much more efficient and safe alternatives to "punish" a child rather than simply smacking, hitting, or spanking a child.

Sources; Only the registered members can see the link.

I conclude my introduction to my argument against the use of physical punishment of children. I look forward to my partners argument, and Pro's rebuttal.

Thank you.

[Slik]

I will begin for our team, firstly I would like to point out that there is a distinctive difference between abuse and punishment.

While a child will resent a parent for their punishments it is actually a good thing in terms of effective punishment. If a child dislikes the punishment it is more effective to deter them from doing things they shouldn't. This said, there has to be satisfactory reasoning behind the physically punishment, or the child will not aknowledge why they are recieving the punishment and only note the fact that they recieved it.

I would like to point out that while studies have shown there can be psychological problems for a child in their later years this is more often due to unjustified physical punishment. If a parent comes home from a hard days work and their child has their toys out, it is not a reason to physically punish your child. Instead in this situation warnings should be given yet some parents will take their stress and anger out on the child. While this is physically punishment I would like to point out that I believe this to be wrong. In these situations warnings must be given, which are backed up with the fear of phsyical punishment.

I completely disagree with 'When hitting a child you give them no means to correct the situation; while in fear they have no thought of how to correct it or prevent the mishap instead the child is filled with intense emotions whether it be sadness, pain, anger, or guilt.'. Physically punishment is a deterrant, not a solution. Verbal re-enforcements need to be placed along side physical punishment. Smacking your child is pointless unless they understand why they are receiving it. The fear factor itself will prevent a child from doing bad things, but only if you teach them what is bad and what is good. As a means of punishment sending a child to their room is not effective, while the fear of being hit is.

To conclude, excessive punishment and punishment without reason should not be allowed however when phsyical punishment is used correctly it by far the most effective means to correct a childs behaviour and should most definately be allowed in todays society. For hundreds of years children have been discaplined with this method and if you compare an average child from 200 years ago to todays average child you will find a big difference.

Thank you and good luck with the rest of the debate.

[Zykev2]

Thank you for the response.

Pro has some very valid points and we actually agree on some subjects, there are however some fundamental differences that must be addressed and the holes in his logic.


First off to address Pro's argument I will supply a quote to a part of his previous argument in which he states
I would like to point out that while studies have shown there can be psychological problems for a child in their later years this is more often due to unjustified physical punishment.

Referring back to the source that I previously stated in which it says
Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers

Which brings into account what you said previously where you stated saying there is a difference between abuse and punishment, clearly from the source it shows that physical punishments at an early age (Primarily Infants and Toddlers) spanking and other legal physical punishments can have serious behavior problems later on in life.
Another thing I would like to clear up is that I agree with Pro that at some points mainly when a child is in a very dangerous situation or handling serious things that a physical punishment such as a spanking may be justified. I am simply promoting that there are better more efficient alternatives than just using physical punishment while simultaneously yelling at them.

Pro has also not supplied any ways towards how simple communication and love are not as efficient as physical punishment. Why the need to reinforce something with physical punishment while verbal is good enough? Pro's theory is good but looking at it from a logical perspective his argument doesn't always play out as depicted in real life. Pro also doesn't address the frequency of giving physical punishments. Spanking and slaps are usually given out of frustrations and rarely correct long term problems. Spankings that occur most often are for minor incidents and usually without little warning. Pro states that verbal reinforcement should be added to physical punishment which is in theory 'ok' but in reality will most likely not happen. While a child is being spanked the child will often go into defensive mode and either panic or be afraid while these types of emotions are taking place a child can become hysteric and unreasonable thus hindering there listening abilities as well as how well they process information. As Pro and everyone else would know who has seen a child in public be spanked it often doesn't cure anything of that situation except escalating it. Verbal reprimand can be a great alternative. When you spank a child for a simple thing such as misbehaving you are just making the situation worse; Pro is also suggesting that spanking can be an effective long term deterrent from the particular situation which is untrue and for obvious reasons while physical punishment is good for correcting short term problems it won't deter the child from doing that again in the future as they don't really learn anything about why not to do it and the punishments in a calm but firm manor. You can say the child will be listening to you while giving them "verbal reinforcement" but from an actual standpoint the child will be more focused on the spanking than they will listening to there parental figure on why it is wrong and why you shouldn't do or act the way they are. Like previously stated spanking a child while the child is already crying as a way to stop the child from crying is ineffective and totally wrong why stop a child from crying by hitting them? It doesn't make any sense.

Pro states

To conclude, excessive punishment and punishment without reason should not be allowed however when phsyical punishment is used correctly it by far the most effective means to correct a childs behaviour and should most definately be allowed in todays society.

What do you mean when you said "if it is used correctly?" While it would be sufficient if all parents "used it correctly," that is largely not the case and most of the times parents use physical punishment on children is for minor non-severe activities. It's simply the parent getting frustrated over the child and smacking or spanking them, this may be effective for short term but it doesn't deter the child from doing it in the future. If you spank a child for throwing a temper tantrum because you think it will put the fear in them to not do it next time it might work but it also might fail, When using physical punishment on a child what you're doing is putting fear into a child so they wont do it what you think is wrong again, its not going to fix much of anything; the child will still most likely throw a temper tantrum in the near future and will also still cry over simple things, so the natural instinct for most parents would be to spank them to get them to calm down, instead of other alternatives such as Letting the child fix it themselves, while the child is throwing a temper tantrum let them come to terms that crying will not get them what they want, explain to them why they cant do, or have the thing they want. Along with what I previously stated takes into account the severity of the punishment, Parents sometimes "go to far" when it comes to the severity of the punishment because of stress or anger and sometimes simply spanking a child can cause serious physical damage when it wasn't the parents intention, while this may be an accident it still has harmed the child physically and potentially the parents, legally.

In conclusion to my argument I would like to stress that I do agree with Pro that there are some situations in which a child needs physical reinforcement to convey the message across on what they did wrong, however I do not agree that spanking and hitting on a regular basis even moderately to correct a certain situation is the most efficient nor safe way of correcting it, instead using other systems of rewards and punishments that fit the crime such as 'Time outs' to give the child time to think about what the child did along with verbal reprimands and explanations on why the child is being punished is the best way to deter and permanently fix a certain behavior or action. Even setting up a rewards system for good behavior as positive reinforcement is a great way to promote positive behavior. The fact of the matter is that while spanking and other physical punishments may be a good short-term problem solve it still doesn't full teach the child what they could have done better or different or what they can do to improve the situation.


Thank you for reading my debate. I look forward to Pro's next argument this has been a good debate so far.

[Zykev2]

So is anyone on the Pro side going to reply or does Con win?

[Trey]

I would like to make it clear that in advocating the controlled and appropriate usage of physical punishment, we are in no way endorsing abuse. I will agree that many parents don't use physical punishment correctly. In the early lives of a child, unfortunately, their level of thought isn't exactly very deep. Their understanding may barely go beyond the concept of "I like this" or "I don't like this". As children develop in thought process, as seen in Bloom's taxonomy, their thought goes beyond pure data collection, or receiving. This means that physical punishment is really only effective or even necessary in a very small time frame of a child's development. While children aren't capable of understand a reason or argument a parent provides, the concept of "When I do that, this happens, and I disliked what happened, so I wont do that again" is the most basic of primitive thinking. While some may argue that all it does is induce fear, as mentioned previously, isn't that what all forms of punishment exist for? You don't break the law because you fear the consequences. While a child is not capable of understanding most consequences, physical action and reaction is one of first things a child develops. This does not mean that physical punishment should be the first thing a parent should try. Parents should obviously resort to physical consequences as a last resort, and even then it must be in the most basic and harmless manner and in a manner that the child understands why they're being punished. As many have noticed within young children, their reaction to pain or physical situations is primarily based on a parents reaction. This not only makes physical punishment less than necessary, but means in most cases shouldn't be used at all. Simply expressing anger or disappointment is more than enough to upset a child at an early age, whether or not they put two and two together to associate their misdoings with the parent's reaction is a different story. However, as children continue to grow, simple disapproval isn't going to cut it. When children begin challenging the authority of parents, which is almost always the case at one point in a child's development, simply telling them to stop isn't going to change anything.

There is a drastic difference between abuse and punishment. Obviously, abuse has clear effects on a child's development and sticks with them long into their adult life, as stated previously. This cannot be refuted. However, we are not arguing the bounds of what's abuse and what isn't, rather whether or not physical punishment should be used and whether or not it is effective. While I can almost guarantee that all the members of this debate have had some sort of physical punishment during their childhood, I'm not seeing any issues that have followed us into adolescence or adulthood. Associating physical punishment with abuse is simply wrong and jumping to the extremes of a situation.

While agree with many of statements made by both sides, my argument falls in the middle. As I'm sure Zykev2 will agree when I say that physical punishment is not only a last resort but in most situations deemed unnecessary through conveyance of emotion, I also have to say that emotional punishment doesn't always work. I would like to say that physical punishment isn't needed ever, and that a good parent shouldn't have to use it, but that would be unrealistic. I think there should be fine lines made that detail what is and isn't acceptable, but to assume that all physical punishment is physical abuse is similar to saying that all emotional punishment is emotional abuse.

[Zykev2]

So is my partner going to respond or am I going to have to debate this myself?