Reasonable corporal punishment should be permitted in American public schools.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Four Key Points for Judges and potential contenders:
1. Reasonable corporal punishment includes, but is not necessarily limited to, physical conditioning (e.g., running laps around a track), spanking/paddling and the like. (1). The only corporal punishment at issue is "reasonable" corporal punishment. Any abusive corporal punishment would be, by definition, unreasonable. Thus, abusive corporal punishment (e.g., depriving a student of access to water while making him or her run laps in 115 degree Texas heat, beating with a baseball bat, thrashing with an electrical cord) is outside the scope of this debate. Corporal punishment permitted by law in those states permitting it is presumptively reasonable. (1).
2. The legality of corporal punishment is a different issue than reasonableness, however. This is about the normative question of whether corporal punishment should be allowed, not whether it is allowed in any type or form. Arguments with respect to the legal status of corporal punishment shall be considered non-topical and disregarded by judges.
3. The debate is limited to use of corporal punishment in the school setting, and the specific school setting at issue is American public schools. Other contexts beyond the school setting (e.g., corporal punishment at home), in non-American settings (e.g., Australia or Sweden) or in non-public contexts (private and/or religious schools) may be relevant as illustrative examples. But this is a debate about the United States (as opposed countries where corporal punishment is routinely carried out in unreasonable ways according to American sensibilities, like Malaysia, Uganda, Thailand, India or South Korea).
4. The debate is only about whether reasonable corporal punishment should be "permitted," as opposed to mandatory. Permitting corporal punishment does not imply that it will be used wholly or totally in place of other available measures of discipline (like in-school suspension, detention or revocation of extra curricular privileges).
Further, PRO does not have to come up with a plan for HOW corporal punishment should be applied or provide evidence that any particular scheme of implementing would avoid harms (such as potential abuses), identify what if any safeguards as to preventing abuse should be implemented, whether it should be a default punishment as opposed to something like in-school suspension, whether parents should be required to opt-in or opt-out or other issues focusing on implementation. Implementation-focused issues are beyond the scope of this resolution.
Rules: Please review the rules carefully before accepting.
Structure. The structure of this debate shall follow as such:
Round 1: debaters shall make their affirmative cases (absent any specific refutation of arguments made by the opposing side).
Round 2: debaters shall rebut the affirmative cases raised in round 1 (and may introduce new evidence in support of such rebuttals).
Round 3: debaters shall reply to the rebuttals provided in round 2 and provide any reconstructive arguments in support of arguments initially raised in round 1 (but may not introduce new evidence in support of such replies or reconstructive arguments).
Burdens of Persuasion. The burdens of persuasion shall be equal, as stated below:
In order for PRO to win, PRO must argue that "on balance" reasonable corporal punishment should be permitted in American public schools; and prevent CON from establishing that, by the same standard, corporal punishment should NOT be permitted in American public schools.
In order for CON to win, CON must argue that "on balance" reasonable corporal punishment should NOT be permitted in American public schools; and prevent PRO from establishing that, by the same standard, corporal punishment SHOULD be permitted in American public schools.
For the avoidance of doubt, the burdens of persuasion apply equally to both sides. No side has any greater or lesser burden than the other. All starting points are equal.
Please ask questions if any of the above is unclear. If you do not agree to these terms, it would be better that you select another debate.
Accepting this debate implies that you agree with all terms stated herein.
Maybe you would be interested in this debate - https://www.debateart.com/debates/2988-controversial-debate-topic-series-donald-trump-was-a-good-u-s-president
The primary reasons schools should definitely not allow corporal punishment is because #1 there's potential for abuse -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #2 disparate application of force and/or frequency -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #3 potential discrimination -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #4 some parents not giving permission or having the potential to opt out -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that; #5 significant discrepancies on what could be considered reasonable -- you've forbidden Con from arguing that. And you said you don't have to address any questions regarding implementation lol. Preventing your opponent from arguing ***the most significant and relevant aspects*** of corporal punishment as it relates to schools, specifically, and then turning around and saying "hrrr drr drr drr LoOkS LiKe nOBoDy WaNtS tO dEbAtE thE MeRiTs oF tHiS" is truly 😂😂😂😂
What it's sounding like to me is that no one here wants to actually argue the merits of whether schools should be allowed to use corporal punishment.
"Contrary to the incorrect interpretation of one member, "
yeah, just the one.
Then don't accept ... lol.
Corporal punishment has nothing to do with restorative justice, reasonable or otherwise. And your incorrect interpretation of what the word "reasonable" means should not be interpreted as actually limiting what CON can argue.
Someone like Mikal might be able to thunderously bring forth a ton of evidence to throw you off "reasonable", or Larztheloser's 30,000 characters round (previously managing to outdo Whiteflame's impacts) to bring out the history of corporal punishment linking to the future. But I feel like other than DDO's trickiest of the trickiest, not even Roy Latham could potentially win this debate. He's sharp and well researched, but I doubt he can muddle "reasonable" -- as his commonly debated opponent Danielle points out.
*sigh* the problem is the word "reasonable". If you get rid of that, the counter plan of counseling and restorative justice can potentially prove to be a powerful alternative, however, based on your round 1 and your setup, I can safely say this debate is truly "Undefeatable".
That's interesting. I would have thought that the majority of people here would be vehemently against any corporal punishment.
this looks like the type of debate I would write to set up a guaranteed win, except this is arguably even more difficult to beat than my Systemic Racism argument.
Yes, that's right. And arguing that no corporal punishment should be used in public schools for the reason that any corporal punishment leads to unreasonable further punishment would be totally fine.
Contrary to the incorrect interpretation of one member, there is no reasonable interpretation of the resolution where CON is limited to arguing "against a policy where they must accept there could be no potential problems at all."
One of the core reasons corporal punishment is typically bad is because they often ENCOURAGE unreasonable punishment
Then don't accept.
I completely agree. The parameters are structured in such a way that Pro would dispute every single issue pertinent to corporal punishment regarding SCHOOLS in particular (potential discrimination, abuse, excess, opting out) is outside the scope of what Con is allowed to argue. That is ridiculous. The only thing Con is allowed to argue is that there are long-term or net harms to corporal punishment. That is what the resolution of this debate should be then. It's nonsensical to make this about schools while prohibiting Con from arguing almost every single reason why c.p. might not a good idea for schools in particular, even if there was potential utility. There is potential utility to contact sports but reasons they are not played in schools (phys ed). There is potential utility to having sex and smoking pot but reasons that should not be done in school. There could be utility to praying but reasons not to encourage that in public schools. There could be utility in taking a fat kid's candy away but reasons teachers should not do that in schools.
A good faith debate regarding schools would not disqualify virtually every single reason why schools, with unique challenges and liability concerns, would choose not to utilize c.p. even if some benefits could be identified. Con is being forced to argue against a policy where they must accept there could be no potential problems at all lol... good luck.
You need only argue that schools should not be allowed to engage in corporal punishment. The rules are to prevent abusive, absurd, disingenuous or otherwise improper interpretations of what constitutes "corporal punishment."
Can't attack feasibility as Pro needn't offer a single realistic plan,
Can't attack ethics or reasonability as it's defined as self-evidently reasonable...
What can you attack? Nothing. There is no debate.
rigged, bullshit semantics and rule-limitations for side of Con to attack or demnd things from Pro in the description, boring to watch.