Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
32
debates
59.38%
won
Topic
#6028
Corporal punishment of children should be banned
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
3
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Gorgias
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Every slap, every strike, every moment spent in tears and pain, memories of violence and feelings of fear, every humiliating display of force is a violation of a child.
I. Harms health
When parents physically punish, they communicate that child's bodies and emotions are inherently unworthy of respect or protection. It reduces communication, conditions them to internalize their anger, pain, and fear, leading to self-blame and low self-esteem. Studies show that even yelling at children causes them harm to their mental health. Physical punishment carries significant harm to mental health, as instead of being talked to and understood, children are hurt and they feel scared and traumatized. The stress caused by corporal punishment can negatively impact a child's brain development. It causes long-term emotional distress, increases anxiety and fear in children, leads to lower self-esteem, can result in depression, causes trust issues with parents/caregivers, creates a negative association with authority figures, can lead to feelings of helplessness, encourages repressed anger, which may manifest later.
It causes emotional detachment, contributes to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), reduces concentration in school, causes school avoidance due to fear, lowers academic motivation, leads to lower academic performance,increases dropout rates, creates an aversion to learning, reduces classroom participation. It hinders problem-solving skills, encourages learning through fear instead of curiosity, may result in learning disabilities due to chronic stress. Many countries ban corporal punishment of prisoners because it is believed to violate their rights, and it is irrational to think that children who are guilty of no crime have less rights than prisoners. There are much better alternatives. Positive reinforcement is more effective. Logical consequences teach responsibility better. Time-outs encourage reflection. Communication improves behavior in the long run. Restorative discipline fosters empathy. Problem-solving strategies encourage independence. Behavioral modeling creates long-term change.
Reward-based systems promote motivation, parental guidance and patience lead to better discipline. Studies in overwhelming majority speak against corporal punishment. Studies show corporal punishment is ineffective long-term. Research links it to higher aggression rates. Neurological studies show stress from physical punishment harms brain development. Pediatric organizations condemn corporal punishment. Psychological associations strongly oppose it. Educators advocate against its use. Child development experts recommend positive discipline instead. Countries that banned it report positive outcomes. Studies show non-violent parenting leads to better-adjusted adults. Evidence overwhelmingly supports alternative discipline over physical punishment.
II. It is unwanted pain and harms their wants in long term
Children dont want to feel scared, they dont want to be hurt or yelled at, and they dont deserve to be hurt like that. It harms their wants in the long run, and makes them less able to achieve what they want in life, such as safety, protection, respect and happiness. It violates children's rights, is considered child abuse in many countries. It goes against UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is banned in many developed and advanced nations. It violates the principle of bodily autonomy, encourages parental misuse of power. It is inconsistent with laws protecting adults from assault. Body rights are crucial rights. Respecting body ownership is even a condition for having a debate and reaching truth of a position.
Corporal punishment infringes upon a child's fundamental right to physical integrity and dignity. It treats children as less deserving of protection from violence than adults. Society has evolved to recognize that violence against any person is unacceptable, and children deserve the same level of protection. International human rights treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, emphasize the importance of protecting children from all forms of violence. The idea that it is acceptable to inflict physical pain on a vulnerable individual is ethically problematic. It creates a legal grey area for child abuse. It goes against ethical standards in child psychology and education. It contradicts the principle of non-violence, undermines the concept of children as rights-holders, implies that physical pain is a legitimate tool for shaping behavior, creates a hierarchy of human value where children are less deserving of respect, justifies the use of force by those in positions of power, contradicts the notion of a safe and nurturing environment for children. It blurs all lines between discipline and abuse.
It violates consent, as children dont truly consent to physical pain. It damages the child's sense of trust and security, fosters fear and anxiety, not genuine understanding. It can lead to long-term emotional trauma. It increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in children, impedes the development of healthy coping mechanisms, contradicts the goal of fostering self-discipline. It creates a cycle of violence, where children learn to use force. It undermines the child's self-esteem and sense of worth. It contradicts the goal of developing a child's emotional intelligence, can cause the child to associate learning with pain. It can lead to many mental health issues, makes a child less likely to seek help when they need it. Damages the parent-child relationship. Ignores the fact that children learn best through positive reinforcement. Contradicts the idea that there are much more effective, non-violent methods. Creates inconsistency, as "sometimes okay to cause pain" is subjective and open to abuse. Implies that adults are incapable of controlling their anger. Contradicts the goal of teaching children to resolve conflict peacefully. Fails to address the underlying cause of the child's behavior. Creates a power imbalance that is ripe for abuse. Makes it harder for children to communicate their needs. Contradicts the goal of teaching children to think critically. It is impossible to standardize what "sometimes okay" means. It implies that a childs behavior is always the root cause of issues, and ignores external stressors. It ignores that children have different pain tolerances. It relies on the idea that an adult is always a perfect judge of appropriate punishment. It creates a system where fear of punishment overrides moral development. It ignores that children learn by imitating adults, and they teach them violence. It assumes that physical force is the fastest method of behavioral change, ignoring long term consequences. It creates a system where children learn to hide behavior, instead of correct it.
It ignores that some children have mental or physical conditions that make them react differently to pain. Normalizes the use of physical force in personal relationships. Contradicts the trend towards more humane and child-centered societies. Reinforces traditional power structures that are harmful to children. Makes it harder to address other forms of violence against children. Isolates children who are victims of abuse. Undermines the credibility when adults argue for non-violence. Can lead to social stigma for children who are punished physically. Contradicts the idea of a compassionate and just society. It greatly increases the probability of children entering the criminal justice system. It creates a social environment where children are less likely to report abuse. It can lead to the children having negative views of authority. It creates a society where children are treated as property. It can create a generational cycle of abuse. Creates a legal gray area that can be easily exploited by many abusers. Creates a system where children are less likely to trust authority figures. Makes it harder to prosecute cases of child abuse. Contradicts the principle that very young children should not be physically punished. Ignores the vulnerability of children with disabilities. Implies that corporal punishment is acceptable in situations of minor misbehavior. Assumes that all children respond to physical punishment in the same way.
III. It causes more violence in society
It teaches children that violence is a justified response to even small things which upset us, which greatly increases violence in society as the learned response repeats throughout life. Corporal punishment instills fear, not discipline. It teaches children that might makes right, that aggression is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts. This breeds a culture of violence, where young minds learn to inflict and endure physical pain as a means of control. It encourages violent problem-solving, leads to rebellious behavior, causes children to develop deceptive habits, teaches that physical force is an acceptable response to frustration. It reduces moral internalization of right and wrong, increases risk of delinquency, leads to antisocial behavior. It can increase defiance rather than deter it. It may lead to bullying behavior, harm peer relationships, encourage isolation and loneliness. It normalizes violence in friendships, reduces ability to express emotions healthily, it makes children more likely to enter abusive relationships as adults. It argues for submission to authority without critical thinking, promotes revenge-seeking behavior, reinforces social inequality, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. It often leads to increased aggression, anxiety, breaking of family bonds and depression. Children who experience corporal punishment may learn to associate violence with power and are more likely to use violence to resolve conflicts themselves. Children who experience corporal punishment are more likely to use violence against others, including their own children, when they become adults. Positive discipline methods such as open communication and rewards are much more effective in promoting positive behavior. Others include, time outs, loss of privileges, and positive reinforcement.
Banning corporal punishment has many benefits for society. It reduces overall societal violence, encourages peaceful conflict resolution, reduces domestic violence cases, improves workplace behavior in future generations, decreases child neglect and abuse cases, creates a healthier emotional environment at home, encourages future generations to use non-violent parenting, reduces healthcare costs related to mental health issues. All available evidence indicates that Sweden has been extremely successful in reducing rates of child physical abuse over the past few decades and that reduction has been maintained since the passage of the corporal punishment ban. Many countries have already banned corporal punishment. This shows that it is possible and the correct action to take.
Con
#2
I. Corporal Punishment is an Effective Disciplinary Tool if Used Correctly
In behavioral science, immediate consequences for actions either reinforce or decrease behavior. Receiving candy, a sticker, verbal praise or a pay raise at your job, as a reward following a particular action will increase the likelihood of you continuing in that action and repeating that behavior. In contrast, receiving negative feedback at your job, losing privileges, or feeling physical pain as a consequence of an action will reduce the likelihood of repeating that action. Physical pain following an action has been ineffective deterrent from repeating that action in humans and animals since its evolution. For example, an electric fence is an effective tool to keep animals confined toa certain area or out of an area. I used to have a dog named Mocha and she would run all over the neighborhood, into streets and onto highways until we installed a buried cable along our fence line. The cable, when coming into proximity wither collar, would release a small, short electric shock causing her to avoid crossing the invisible line. After a few weeks we learned the batteries had run out in the collar, but she remained inside the yard. Even after removing the collar, for years she would not leave the yard. The physical pain not only prevented the negative behavior (when the collar was functioning) but conditioned her to not perform the undesirable behavior again, even without the deterrent. While this is a more extreme use of physical pain, it, like corporal punishment, is an effective tool at reducing negative behavior through physical pain.
A study published in the Journal of Behavioral Development outlines that consequences which are immediate and proportionate to the offense tend to have the most significant impact on behavior modification (Baumrind, 1996). In the case of my dog, an electric shock was appropriate to modify her behavior preventing her from getting hit by a car and dying. However, instances in children running out into a busy street would be appropriate to receive a spanking because it is very serious, while getting spanked from dropping a coffee cup by accident is not proportionate to the offense.
II. Research and Methodology Concerns
There are many studies which show a strong correlation between corporal punishment and negative child outcomes(anger, aggression, depression, anxiety, etc.), however as we know correlation does not equal causation, and it would be incorrect to assume that the negative outcomes were caused by corporal punishment especially when other more significant contributing factors like child abuse and parenting styles are at play. An example I often hear explaining this illogical assumption of correlation and causation: Ice cream sales and homicide rates have a strong correlation, however ice cream does not cause homicide, instead it is summer and heat which drives up ice cream sales and simultaneously increases homicide rates. Many of these negative child outcomes correlated with corporal punishment also have been shown to result from authoritarian parenting types and child abuse, which makes it difficult to distinguish which is more of a contributing factor when spanking is accompanied with authoritarian parenting and/or child abuse.
Cross sectional and retrospective studies is what you are relying on to make the claim that corporal punishment “causes” all of these negative outcomes like anger aggression, violence etc. A meta-analysis commonly used condemn spanking (Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. 2016) states that 70% of studies analyzed are cross sectional or retrospective. Cross-sectional studies cannot account for when the negative outcomes like anger occurred in relation to the spanking. For example, if a cross-sectional study finds a correlation between spanking and child anger, it is unclear whether: The spanking caused the anger, or the child was already angry or misbehaving, prompting the parent to spank them, or not uncommonly, the child had a history of anger prompting the parents to use corporal punishment. In retrospective studies, researchers rely on memory recall, which is inaccurate and subject to recall bias as shown in court with eye-witness testimony.
III. Parental Rights, Ethical Considerations, and Societal Implications
In free societies, it is a fundamental right of parents to decide how they want to raise and discipline their children. Governments deciding rules and regulations for parenting is dangerous because they can easily ignore unique situations with broad sweeping laws. For example, a ban on leashes for children, because of their “degrading nature," could result in deaths for mentally disabled children who do not understand running in the street is dangerous. Assuming a one-size-fits all approach as acceptable is incorrect and tailoring it to individual cases is only possible by the parent’s discretion.
Corporal punishment, when implemented within ethics and not entering into the realm of child abuse, is parental right and responsibility. Most parents who implement corporal punishment do so in a controlled manner without anger or abuse (Straus &Paschall, 2009). The comparison of corporal punishment to abuse is a false equivalency. Abuse is uncontrolled and harmful, while discipline is structured and intentional. While my opponent brings up extreme cases, the reality is that most corporal punishment is administered with care and reason.
In society, many people accept physical force to prevent negative behavior and shape positive behavior. Police officers employ physical force to stop negative behavior. Judges use physical force to prevent future negative behavior. The military uses physical (and psychological) tactics to shape behavior. Should football be banned? As logic suggests, running the front of your head into things repeatedly is likely going to damage your prefrontal cortex (reasoning, impulse control, emotion regulation) combined with desensitization to violence and aggression from tackling, thereby increasing violent behavior. Most everyone accepts these societal aspects, but somehow in a contradictory way, using physical force to shape or prevent behavior in children, no matter how ethical, should be banned.
If corporal punishment were banned, there might be some benefits, but we should focus on who would be most affected. Child abuse is already illegal, so authoritarian parents who engage in abuse would be unaffected. Neglectful and permissive/indulgent parents, who either ignore or overindulge their children, would also see little impact. That leaves law-abiding authoritative parents (and branches authoritative/permissive etc.) many of whom were likely raised with the same punishment methods and who utilize ethical approaches. If they are unfamiliar with alternative approaches, could their children’s behavior suffer as a result? Most parents likely do not have a deep understanding of positive and negative reinforcement as used in behavioral therapy. In fact, Sweden, the first country to ban corporal punishment, has seen drastic spike in youth delinquency and argument over whether the ban contributed to this alarming increase in youth crime.
IV. Temporary Discomfort in Building Discipline and Resilience
While my opponent argues that corporal punishment creates fear and emotional distress, this argument overlooks a critical reality: that temporary pain from discipline is a normal and necessary part of life. Children who are never subjected to firm consequences struggle with emotional resilience and accountability as they grow into adulthood. My opponent’s argument assumes that all pain is harmful, yet countless life lessons from learning to walk, to sports training, to academic endeavors come with temporary discomfort and pain which leads to growth and positive behaviors.
The large majority (80%) of children around the world are physically punished as a result of negative behaviors (UNICEF, 2014). While some adults may say it caused negative outcomes in their life, most who were raised in families where spanking was non-abusive, ethical, and proportional to the offense, will say otherwise. Many adults, myself included, will attest to how it shaped them into disciplined and respectful individuals. Studies have found no significant correlation between mild corporal punishment and negative long-term psychological effects when used within reason (Baumrind, 2001). Instead, it provides children with clear moral and behavioral boundaries, reinforcing responsibility and consequences for their actions.
V. Conclusion
Banning corporal punishment eliminates an effective tool for teaching children not to run into the street, to hit their brother, or disrespect their parent. Yes, it is hurtful, it is supposed to be, and yes, it can cause fear before the punishment but also fear of committing negative behavior again as shown in my dog. It is the right of the parent to raise their child how they see fit, not the government, because the government cannot account for every child’s individual needs like a parent can. Physical punishment is engrained in society, from parents, to police, to prison, and the ultimate punishment death. If a spanking can prevent that, it is worth it.
My opponent has claimed hundreds absolutistic beliefs, one that spanking causes violence, I, despite being spanked up until the age of 14, am not a violent person, nor am I angry, mentally disabled, or ridden with anxiety and fear. Although, I know someone that is, and who was spanked, but they were also abused, yelled at, and humiliated daily. There is a difference. Talk to people you know who were spanked, ask them how they felt about it. Their perspective may be very different from a researcher in a lab.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I. Harms health
Corporal punishment creates an unsafe and violent bullying school environment by causing children to be more violent towards other children. Studies have linked physical punishment to increased anxiety, suggesting a disruption in a child's fundamental sense of safety and security. The experience of physical pain inflicted by a caregiver can create a state of hypervigilance and apprehension, potentially leading to chronic anxiety. Furthermore, corporal punishment is associated with higher rates of depression and lower self-esteem in children. When children are physically punished, they may internalize feelings of inadequacy or believe they are not loved or accepted unconditionally, eroding their self-worth and increasing their vulnerability to depressive symptoms. The suppression of anger resulting from physical punishment has also been identified as a contributing factor to depression. Negative mental health consequences of corporal punishment extend into adulthood, with studies indicating a link between physical punishment in childhood and an increased risk of depression and substance abuse. Corporal punishment can significantly hinder the development of crucial social and emotional skills in children. It decreases moral internalization, making children less likely to understand why a behavior is wrong and impeding the development of a strong conscience. Corporal punishment focuses on external control through fear of pain, rather than fostering an internal understanding of right and wrong, which is fundamental for developing empathy. When children are physically punished, their primary focus becomes avoiding punishment rather than comprehending the impact of their actions on others which requires understanding and sharing the feelings of others.
Leading child psychology and child development organizations have unequivocally stated their opposition to the use of corporal punishment. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry does not support corporal punishment as a method of behavior modification, emphasizing its ineffectiveness over time and its association with increased aggression and decreased moral internalization. The AACAP also highlights additional negative outcomes, including an increased risk of physical abuse and the learning that aggression is an acceptable problem-solving method. Similarly, peak bodies of pediatricians, such as The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, have published position statements against the use of physical punishment, citing its long-term adverse consequences for a child's health, behavior, and emotional well-being. The World Health Organization also strongly condemns corporal punishment, identifying it as a violation of children's rights and linking it to a range of negative outcomes, including physical and mental ill-health, impaired cognitive and socio-emotional development, and increased aggression. This unified stance from prominent expert organizations underscores the strong scientific and professional consensus regarding the harmful effects of corporal punishment and the need to adopt alternative, evidence-based disciplinary approaches. Research consistently demonstrates that corporal punishment negatively impacts the quality of the parent-child relationship. Secure attachment in children is fostered by warm, positive interactions with parents and is undermined by harsh, punitive interactions like corporal punishment. The use of physical force can create distance and resentment between parents and children, eroding the emotional bond necessary for healthy development. The experience of being physically punished by a caregiver can lead to difficulties in forming secure attachments and trusting others. Children need to feel safe and protected by their parents, and corporal punishment can shatter this sense of security, potentially leading to long-term trust issues. Furthermore, fear and resentment resulting from corporal punishment can inhibit open and honest communication between parents and children. Children who fear physical punishment may be less likely to confide in their parents or seek their guidance, leading to a breakdown in communication that can further strain the parent-child relationship and hinder the child's overall development.
Studies using MRI assessments have found that spanking can alter a child's brain response in ways similar to severe maltreatment, leading to an increased perception of threats. Specifically, children who have been spanked exhibit higher activity in the brain areas that regulate emotional responses and detect threats, even towards facial expressions that would typically be considered non-threatening. This suggests that corporal punishment has a direct neurological impact, affecting areas of the brain crucial for emotional regulation and threat detection. This heightened neural response to perceived threats can affect a child's ability to regulate their emotions, potentially leading to difficulties in managing stress and impulses. While corporal punishment may often result in immediate behavioral compliance, extensive research demonstrates its ineffectiveness in achieving long-term behavioral change. It may temporarily suppress unwanted behavior through fear, but it does not teach children the underlying reasons for appropriate behavior or equip them with self-regulation skills. In contrast, evidence-based parenting programs that utilize positive discipline methods, such as appropriate limit-setting and praise and rewards to reinforce positive behaviors, tend to improve the parent-child relationship and reduce the need for corporal punishment. These techniques, grounded in social, cognitive-behavioral, and developmental learning theories, focus on teaching children appropriate behaviors, fostering a positive parent-child relationship, and promoting self-regulation.
II. Harms their wants
Meta-analyses comparing the effectiveness of physical punishment with other disciplinary methods have found that severe forms of physical punishment are consistently associated with detrimental outcomes, while even milder forms show limited benefits compared to alternatives.
III. More violence in society
A substantial body of evidence reveals a strong association between corporal punishment and increased aggression in children. Ironically, this disciplinary method, often intended to curb aggression, inadvertently teaches children that aggression is an acceptable means of resolving conflict and exerting power. Children struggle to recognize and respond to the pain and distress of others if their own pain has been inflicted by those they depend on for care and safety. It makes children more prone to resorting to aggression in their own conflicts rather than developing constructive conflict resolution skills. By using physical force to resolve issues, parents inadvertently teach their children that violence is an acceptable means of problem-solving, thus undermining the development of non-violent and empathetic approaches to conflict. Social learning theory posits that children learn by observing and imitating the behavior of their caregivers. When parents use physical force, they are modeling aggressive problem-solving strategies, which children are likely to emulate in their interactions with peers, siblings, and adults. Research also connecting corporal punishment to increased delinquent and antisocial behavior in both childhood and adulthood.
Experiencing corporal punishment in childhood has been associated with displaying aggressive or violent behavior later in life, including dating violence and the perpetration of violence in general. Creates a hostile home environment. Teaches children that love is conditional on obedience. Can result in social withdrawal. Normalizes violence as a conflict resolution method. Lowers IQ and cognitive abilities. Reduces motivation for learning. Causes attention and concentration problems. Leads to poor academic performance. Encourages rote learning over critical thinking. Weakens memory retention. Makes children less likely to ask for academic help. Discourages curiosity and exploration. Can cause serious injuries or disabilities. Increases the risk of child abuse. Leads to accidental death in severe cases. Weakens a child's immune system due to stress. Triggers chronic stress responses. Can cause headaches, digestive issues, and sleep problems. Contributes to eating disorders. Increases likelihood of self-harm or suicidal thoughts. Violates children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Contradicts principles of dignity and respect. Treats children as property rather than individuals. Promotes authoritarian control rather than guidance. Imposes physical pain as a means of control. Reinforces power imbalances in society. Disregards children's right to bodily autonomy. Encourages a culture of silence around abuse. Leads to normalization of domestic violence. Goes against the Golden Rule of treating others with kindness. Does not teach problem-solving skills. Fails to encourage intrinsic motivation. Short-term compliance does not translate into long-term discipline. Inconsistent effects depending on the child’s temperament. Causes children to repeat misbehavior secretly. Can escalate over time, requiring harsher punishments. Teaches obedience out of fear rather than respect. Encourages acceptance of violence in society. Fosters an authoritarian and oppressive culture. Reduces empathy and compassion in future generations. Normalizes violence in schools and public settings. Encourages workplace bullying and toxic leadership. Banned in many progressive countries due to its harm. Schools with corporal punishment have higher dropout rates. Creates legal ambiguity around child abuse. Hinders global progress towards non-violent parenting. Governments have a duty to protect children from harm. Societies that ban corporal punishment report lower crime rates. Corporal punishment discourages non-violent, respectful parenting and education. It harms knowledge and flow of information.
Prevents being hit by car
Countries which banned corporal punishment have less car accidents. There are much better ways to keep children safe in traffic, like watching over and explaining to them how to behave.
Correlation causation
Causation is consistent correlation, and studies showed consistent correlation of corporal punishment to worse outcomes.
it is a fundamental right of parents
Children arent property of parents. Parents have no right to harm their children.
most corporal punishment is administered with care and reason
My opponent conceded that some corporal punishment is not administered with care and reason, thus best to ban it completely to reduce cases where care and reason dont prevail.
authoritarian parents who engage in abuse would be unaffected
Disproved by studies. Legal corporal punishment blurs the line between abuse and "care".
Children who are never subjected to firm consequences
No corporal punishment =/= no consequences.
Con
#4
Rebuttal
Seemingly, almost every other sentence is a different statement, and I commend you for finding hundreds of statements supporting your view, however it does make it difficult to respond to because there are so many topics. I will be leaving things out, feel free to point out something you noticed I skipped over.
Separating Authoritarian Parenting and Child Abuse from Spanking
Children don’t want to feel scared, they don’t want to be hurt or yelled at, and they don’t deserve to be hurt like that.
I agree, however instilling fear and yelling at children are not aspects of corporal punishment, they are actually aspects of authoritarian parenting. Children not wanting to be hurt is the reason corporal punishment works because if they did want to be hurt then it would not be a punishment. What they deserve is subjective and dependent on the severity of the offense.
My opponent has generously given many research articles to support their claim, stating how corporal punishment causes (should be can cause) harm to the well-being of children with side effects like anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, fear, aggression, differing brain development, etc., however they have also incorrectly conflated corporal punishment/spanking with authoritarian parenting and child abuse.
Many, if not all these outcomes you describe of spanking children are also outcomes of authoritarian parenting and child abuse. It is possible and reasonable to conclude that the style of how the parent rears the child is more of a contributing factor to these negative side effects than spanking alone. While many of these research studies focus specifically on corporal punishment in comparing adults who were spanked as children vs those who were not, it is true that they do not fully consider other major contributing factors like parenting styles, environment, cultural beliefs, severity, all of which can alter data leading to causation.
Argumentum ad Populum
It goes against UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is banned in many developed and advanced nations.
The United Nations’ regulations or other countries banning it does not give credence to it being right or wrong, proven or disproven, or worthy of being banned. In fact, while laws are sometimes supported by morality, they are not dependent on it in cases like jaywalking or illegally crossing a border, not being morally reprehensible.
Leading child psychology and child development organizations have unequivocally stated their opposition to the use of corporal punishment.
This is a fallacy i.e. appeal to popularity. I can cite just as many leading organizations and child psychologists who support my case; however, it would not give more credibility to my case because X number of people agree with me. Organizations which condone corporal punishment like the American Psychological Association also supported the Behaviorist’s theories, in the mid-20th century, that the human brain cannot be studied, and that all human behavior is learned through conditioning—now disproven via cognitive psychology. They did this because of the prevailing zeitgeist which multiple organizations agreed with at the time, however it was false. For these reasons, having multiple organizations agree with your view doesn’t make it more true.
Countries which banned corporal punishment have less car accidents. There are much better ways to keep children safe in traffic, like watching over and explaining to them how to behave.
There is no causal link between countries which banned corporal punishment and countries with fewer car accidents. I don’t even think such a comparison has been studied or can be studied.
I’m not saying spanking is the only way to prevent a child from running into the street nor the best way, it is just one way. Here’s an example: If you have communicated to your child multiple times that running in the street is bad, and you try to watch them as often as possible, but they ignore your guidance and do it anyways, then you spank them. See, spanking is the last resort after prevention measures fail, not the first resort, and it is not the only thing used to discourage potentially deadly behavior. "Spanking prohibitions will inadvertently restrict back-up options needed by some parents to enforce nonphysical tactics and reasoning. (Baumrind, Larzelere p.86)"
Research Issues, and Correlation vs Causation
Causation is consistent correlation, and studies showed consistent correlation of corporal punishment to worse outcomes.
Assuming you mean “causation is consistent [with] correlation,” no, that’s completely false. Two things can be correlated to the highest degree of correlation r =1but have zero to do with causing each other to occur. What I referenced in my previous example is called the ice cream/homicide fallacy. If spanking children rates increase, and simultaneously anger rates in children increase, that does not necessarily mean spanking causes anger. As I mentioned previously, with some of the cross-sectional studies you are referencing, spanking could be a consequence of anger not anger being caused by the spanking. The fact that they are correlated with each other means nothing for your case if the spanking is the result of anger, difficulty in school, etc.
Furthermore, other factors like authoritarian parenting, and child abuse also correlate with both spanking and anger (and nearly every other negative outcome you mentioned) creating another set of issues for your case forcing you to have to decide which contributing variable is more likely to cause the anger. Is the anger caused by only spanking or an a**hole parent who spanks?
Consistent correlation of corporal punishment to worse outcomes, again, is correlation not causation. If you read these studies and observe the R values yourself, you will see many of these things you are saying with absolutistic language are far from absolute and are weak correlations (r < 0.3 - 0).
The nail in the coffin of this research disagreement between you and me and large parts of psychology is that corporal punishment and all these behavioral issues you mentioned cannot be studied to show causation in the most effective way currently known, i.e., randomized controlled trials because it would be unethical. Instead, the research supporting your views are mainly cross-sectional, retrospective, and fewer longitudinal, which each come with their own sets of problems in relating two correlating variables to a definitive cause, as I previously showed.
Critique over Language and Rhetoric
Within my opponent’s argument lies many instances of absolutism, leaving no wiggle room, whether this is done on accident or to sound more forceful, I do not know. You continue to say corporal punishment/spanking causes this, does this, is this, but this absolute way of speaking is neither scientifically nor logically correct. It does not definitively or definitely cause these things, it may or can cause these things according to your view. I do not relate to anything you have mentioned regarding negative outcomes despite being spanked for considerably longer than normal at 14 years. How does my positive experience from spanking equate into your absolute rhetoric of things which should have happened to me?
Children arent property of parents. Parents have no right to harm their children.
I didn’t say they were property. Legally parents do have the right to punish their children by physical methods, at least in most of the world.
My opponent conceded that some corporal punishment is not administered with care and reason, thus best to ban it completely to reduce cases where care and reason dont prevail.
I don’t wish to offend you, but this statement is preposterous. Yes, some corporal punishment is not administered with care and reason and some is downright diabolical, and evil. However, most corporal punishment is used with care and reason. In society, you don’t just get rid of things because a minority group could use them to inflict evil. Cars can be used to murder people, where is the ban on cars? Sure, most people use cars with care and reason but because of the ones that don’t we should then ban all motor vehicles. Or seatbelts don’t prevent death 100% of the time so we shouldn’t use seatbelts at all. This is an all-or-nothing fallacy.
Larzelere, Robert and Baumrind, Diana, Are Spanking Injunctions Scientifically Supported? (February 18, 2010). Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 73, No. 2, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3540292
American College of Pediatricians. (n.d.). Research on disciplinary spanking is misleading. Retrieved from https://acpeds.org/position-statements/research-on-disciplinary-spanking-is-misleading
Round 3
Pro
#5
I. Harms health
If strike removes harm, it replaces one harm with another harm and pain. My opponent provided some sources which talk against corporal punishment. Corporal punishment by definition causes pain. Government cant control how often or hard parents hit, for what reasons. Ban enables better control. Corporal punishment often leads to fear rather than respect, undermines a child's self-esteem, does not address the root cause of misbehavior, violates children's rights, leads to social withdrawal, creates hostile home environments, damages trust between children and caregivers, may result in feelings of worthlessness, may lead to rebellion and defiance, can negatively impact social relationships, can hinder moral development, can hinder communication skills, may lead to suicidal thoughts, violates the principles of non-violence and respect, fails to teach positive behaviors.
It may lead to difficulties in forming healthy attachments, can deter open communication between children and adults, may inhibit creativity and self-expression, fails to model appropriate behavior for children, can perpetuate fear-based parenting, reinforces outdated disciplinary methods, can discourage independence and autonomy, which harms decision making. It may make children less likely to respect boundaries, can hinder the development of social skills, fails to address emotional needs, can create a sense of mistrust toward caregivers.
It does not foster a nurturing environment, may hinder resilience and coping mechanisms, can result in distorted perceptions of love and care. It may lead to avoidance of authority figures, fails to consider individual differences in children, can result in alienation from family members, fails to teach accountability in a constructive way, violates the dignity and humanity of the child, can instill fear rather than understanding, does not foster intrinsic motivation for good behavior, can suppress emotional expression, fails to teach conflict management skills, reinforces authoritarian parenting styles, may lead to learned helplessness.
It disregards children's autonomy, can diminish emotional safety within the home, often targets symptoms rather than underlying issues, may cause humiliation and shame, can lead to avoidance behaviors, hinders the development of trust-based relationships, often has unintended consequences, does not promote long-term positive change, can hinder moral reasoning skills, creates an imbalanced power dynamic, may cause emotional numbness, can lead to confusion about acceptable behavior, is a punitive rather than a rehabilitative approach, can perpetuate feelings of rejection, may lead to avoidance of difficult conversations, can promote obedience without understanding, can result in negative reinforcement, may create a cycle of dependency on external discipline.
It neglects the importance of positive reinforcement, disregards children's capacity for self-regulation, disregards the child’s voice and perspective, fails to promote mutual respect between children and caregivers, can weaken a child’s sense of identity, discourages reflective thinking in children, often lacks consistency in its application, may lead to cycles of guilt and shame in parents or caregivers, can alienate children from their families, not supported by modern neuroscience, increases the risk of retaliatory behavior from children, may contribute to feelings of entrapment.
It disregards children’s mental health, fails to build resilience in the child, may lead to the development of passive-aggressive behaviors, undermines efforts to build trust-based disciplinary approaches, disregards the effectiveness of communication-based discipline, may make children feel dehumanized, can lead to emotional scars that carry into adulthood, dismisses the importance of modeling good behavior, can strain sibling relationships by creating a negative home environment, disregards alternative discipline methods that are more effective, undermines the principles of restorative justice, fails to address the emotional needs of both the child and the parent.
It discourages caregivers from exploring more creative solutions, overlooks the importance of teaching empathy, can create a household atmosphere dominated by tension and fear, may normalize retaliation rather than reconciliation, dismisses the importance of setting a positive example, risks confusing discipline with punishment, may interfere with the child’s ability to express emotions constructively, devalues the importance of listening to children, fosters a fear-based learning environment, may lead to emotional suppression in adulthood, discourages open dialogue about feelings and behavior, hinders the development of healthy boundaries, undermines efforts to promote emotional well-being, may contribute to higher stress hormone levels in children.
It fails to teach accountability in a supportive manner, can reduce a child’s ability to trust others, does not encourage reflective thinking or self-awareness, limits the use of positive reinforcement strategies, may lead to feelings of inadequacy in children, creates an environment of control rather than collaboration, disregards the benefits of nonviolent communication, risks overshadowing the importance of emotional regulation, undermines the principles of child-centered education, can erode the moral authority of caregivers, dismisses the role of patience in effective parenting, fails to prepare children for real-world conflict resolution, creates a punitive rather than growth-oriented environment, can increase children’s vulnerability to external stressors, fails to promote adaptability. undermines efforts to build emotionally safe spaces for children, overlooks the importance of modeling nonviolent behavior.
It reinforces reactive rather than proactive parenting, reduces the potential for meaningful parent-child connections, disregards the natural emotional vulnerability of children, undermines efforts to create loving, secure family environments, ignores the importance of cultivating mutual understanding, does not foster long-term behavioral improvements, fails to encourage willing cooperation and collaboration, undermines efforts to build self-discipline in children, overlooks innovative, non-violent discipline strategies, contributes to feelings of humiliation and degradation, discourages respectful family communication, fails to empower children to make positive choices, contributes to an atmosphere of control rather than support, may hinder the development of secure attachment in children, fosters dependency on punitive measures rather than internal regulation.
It does not respect children as individuals with rights and dignity, creates barriers to emotional openness and honesty, undermines respect for diversity in parenting approaches, perpetuates archaic and harmful notions of discipline, risks marginalizing children’s perspectives, does not contribute to a culture of respect and empathy, neglects the psychological toll of fear-based approaches, reduces opportunities for nurturing love and care, ignores the role of emotional safety in behavioral guidance, discourages proactive and preventive parenting methods, undermines the value of fostering strong moral foundations, leads to overemphasis on control rather than guidance, can foster internalized anger in children, may increase the risk of children adopting harmful coping mechanisms, diminishes opportunities for cooperative problem-solving.
It deters children from sharing their concerns with adults, sends a message that physical force is an acceptable response to challenges, undermines the development of mutual respect in relationships, often results in inconsistent and unpredictable discipline, may lead to feelings of betrayal by trusted caregivers, disregards the unique temperament and needs of each child, often results in short-term compliance rather than long-term growth, risks escalating into more severe forms of harm over time, increases the likelihood of children experiencing social difficulties, does not align with holistic approaches to child development, leads to avoidance behaviors that mask underlying issues, does not foster critical thinking or moral decision-making, disregards the importance of relationship-building in discipline, undermines children’s ability to feel safe at home, reinforces a cycle of punitive behavior in future generations, dismisses the potential of teaching through empathy and understanding, creates an environment where children feel undervalued.
II. Harms their wants
Children arent property to use as wanted. Treating them that way cannot be justified.
III. More violence in society
Corporal punishment contributes to the normalization of violence in family settings, leads to a greater acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, erodes empathy in children, perpetuates cultural acceptance of violence, does not promote healthy conflict resolution, can trigger anger and hostility, results in a distorted sense of justice, can instill a belief that physical power is the ultimate authority, undermines the principles of compassion and kindness. It perpetuates a might makes right mentality.
fewer car accidents
Sweden banned corporal punishment of children in all circumstances. It has one of the lowest rate of car accidents in the world. This disproves that corporal punishment is needed for traffic safety. Anger and resentment caused by corporal punishment cause increase in road rage, speeding and violating rules.
causation correlation
Causation establishes when two things consistently correlate with each other, when lack of one consistently correlates with lack of another. If my opponent denies such correlation, he denies his own case which depends on unsupported correlation between spanking and better non-harmful outcomes.
I do not relate to anything you have mentioned
But I do relate. My opponent thinks personal story which is impossible to confirm counts as evidence. I have now provided such evidence.
Legally parents have the right
If you want to defend that parents have a right to harm their children, then you are defending abusers.
most corporal punishment is used with care and reason
No one goes around observing most parents. Causing pain is always harmful. Banning all corporal punishment showed much greater reduction in violence. Parents who disapprove of corproal punishment show much more care for their children.
This is a fallacy appeal to popularity
You say that people have right to do this because people want to. What I mentioned was opinion of scientific communities, who did years of research and studies. I provided plenty of reasons for their conclusions.
Con
#6
Rebuttal and Closing Argument
My opponent has failed to engage with me on any of the important topics concerning the argument, like research reliability, and instead keeps reciting, like a machine, that corporal punishment “causes harm” based solely on correlational studies. As I have explained, correlation does not equal causation, no matter how consistent the findings are between research studies, and that two things correlated with each other do not necessarily cause each other e.g. ice cream/homicide fallacy. Too few experimental studies have been performed that would lead any scientist to conclusively confirm corporal punishment does or can lead to these negative outcomes. It is simply not reasonable to believe all of this correlational data suggests causation on the grounds that everyone is agreeing with it. As I explained, there have been many times when leading psychological and government organizations supported views because of the prevailing zeitgeist and have been proven incorrect.
Do not mistake my argument, I am not claiming that corporal punishment does not cause these things (in opposition to my opponent who is claiming that they do), my argument is suspending judgement due to a lack of experimental evidence, and the overwhelming dogmatic support in the scientific community for the belief of corporal punishment causing negative outcomes without conclusive evidence. My view is that in order for corporal punishment, a right of parents in a free society, to be withdrawn there should be conclusive evidence, not belief.
Regarding this debate, my opponent has ignored my questions, and instead, focused on distorting and oversimplifying my arguments to make them easier to attack, committing multiple fallacies along the way. They have continued to speak in an absolute method that corporal punishment does in fact cause these things, despite their own research not supporting their absolutistic rhetoric. This rigid language flies in the face of millions of individuals that do not suffer from these negative outcomes. Most importantly, my opponent lacks an understanding of research methodology on the most basic level, i.e. correlation does not equal causation, suggesting they have a very simplistic understanding of how to identify reliable research to support their argument.
In reference to debate tactics, my opponent’s argument has repeatedly started with, “It harms health” in every comment, but seeks no other dialog options as to why or if it does in fact harm health. In arguing against the reliability of the research, my opponent’s reply, again, focuses on “It harms health,” ignoring my challenge to the dependability and truthfulness of their claim, and attempting to drown out my opposing view with excessive amounts of correlational information unrelated to my dispute. This argument style of my opponent is known a ‘Gish gallop,’ “a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. (Wikipedia)” Like I said before, my opponent has made hundreds of points but made no attempts to back up their validity or resist my challenges, showcasing a flaw in their style of debate and an inability to prove me incorrect.
Me: I do not relate to anything you have mentioned
Opponent: But I do relate. My opponent thinks personal story which is impossible to confirm counts as evidence. I have now provided such evidence.
My opponent discounts my personal experiences as meaningless, while simultaneously and contradictorily, saying their experience is meaningful, “But I do relate.” They then go on to claim personal stories have no evidentiary value. Retrospective studies, some of the studies you have referenced, rely in-part on personal experiences. Personal experiences do count towards evidence, but not as evidence.
My opponent discounts my personal experiences as meaningless, while simultaneously and contradictorily, saying their experience is meaningful, “But I do relate.” They then go on to claim personal stories have no evidentiary value. Retrospective studies, some of the studies you have referenced, rely in-part on personal experiences. Personal experiences do count towards evidence, but not as evidence.
For example, If I claim that drinking water causes serial killers because research shows a strong correlation between the two, but 99.999% of people tell me they drink water without becoming serial killers, should I ignore this just because personal experiences are impossible to prove? Of course not! There are more people than not who will tell you corporal punishment did not negatively impact their adult lives. To ignore them and focus only on faulty data is bad science.
If you quote another person, quote them exactly without changing it or leaving things out.
My original comment:
"In free societies, it is a fundamental right of parents to decide how they want to raise and discipline their children."
Your first quote of my comment (lacking context):
"It is a fundamental right of parents."
Your first reply:
"Children aren’t property of parents. Parents have no right to harm their children."
My reply:
"I didn’t say they were property. Legally, parents do have the right to punish their children by physical methods, at least in most of the world."
Your second quote (lacking context/misrepresentation):
"Legally, parents have the right."
What I actually said with context:
"Legally, parents do have the right to punish their children by physical methods (at least in most of the world)."
Your second reply:
"If you want to defend that parents have a right to harm their children, then you are defending abusers."
You are essentially straw-manning my argument with your repeated misrepresentations and purposeful segmentation of my words to push a false negative view of me towards others. Taking a portion of something I've said, turning it into something else, and attacking that, is very harmful thing to do for someone advocating for a reduction of harm.
Research
It is not the amount of research articles, journals, and studies one uses to represent their case to show a firm viewpoint, but the validity and strength of the literature combined with logic to enforce it. You can see that my opponent has used more articles than I have, although these articles all say similar things because they draw from the same studies. The studies that I have explained are not reliable enough to say with certainty, “Corporal punishment causes these negative outcomes." Some studies include beating and whipping children with objects inflating their correlational values. While others have weak correlation (>0.3) within the tables or ignore significant contributing factors. These studies only show correlation without any justifiable claim of causation. The more popular sources across the internet take this correlational data and attribute it to causation without any evidence. Following this, individuals, like my opponent, interpret this to mean corporal punishment definitely causes negative outcomes, when that is far from the truth. This is especially influential if the individual relates to the misinformation, like my opponent does. The research my opponent is using does not support their case but only shows relationships between things which in my ice cream/homicide fallacy explanation I showed as inaccurate. Multiple longitudinal studies supporting each other still need to be completed to conclusively show corporal punishment is negative for children even in mild, ethical forms. Simply relying on cross-sectional and retrospective studies to attribute causation is faulty at best.
Closing Example and Final Statement
The Happiness Paradox (or Easterlin Paradox) challenges the assumption that more money always leads to greater happiness. Early studies in the 20th century by Davidson & Deininger (1955), and Diener (1984), showed a strong correlation between income and happiness, leading many individuals to believe wealth directly causes happiness. However, Richard Easterlin’s 1974 research found that while wealthier individuals report higher happiness, countries with rising incomes over time didn’t show a corresponding increase in national happiness. This suggested that once basic needs are met, more money doesn’t significantly improve happiness.
Furthermore, research from Diener’s 1995 and Layard’s 2005 studies, confirmed that after a certain income threshold, factors such as relationships, health, and social connections become more important for happiness than wealth. The “Hedonic Treadmill Theory” (Brickman, Campbell,1971) explained that people adapt to changes in income, so the happiness boost from wealth is often temporary.
Today, the scientific consensus is that while money plays a role in happiness, its impact diminishes after reaching a certain level. Non-material factors, like relationships and life satisfaction, are stronger predictors of long-term well-being. Unfortunately, the prevailing zeitgeist, that wealth equates to happiness, still stands within much of our capitalistic society, leading individuals to devote their lives to achieving this supreme happiness that always seems just out of reach.
As shown in this example, individuals can easily believe something that sounds true, like wealth equals happiness, but lacks all but correlational evidence to support it. Millions of people still believe more money will make them happier, showing that popularity has no effect on truth.
Finally, it is this preponderance of correlational research, along with confounding variables like parenting styles and limited longitudinal studies, compounded by the popular opinion within science pushing back against counterevidence (which does exist), that leads me to conclude that not enough causal evidence exists to justifiably ban corporal punishment or to expect a ban would considerably improve society.
Thank you.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con prevails because the evidence linking corporal punishment to harm is correlational rather than causal—most studies are cross-sectional or retrospective and cannot rule out reverse causation or third-variable influences—so there is insufficient proof to justify a blanket ban. Moreover, in a free society, parents deserve the discretion to apply proportionate, last-resort measures in exceptional circumstances; a one-size-fits-all prohibition undermines family autonomy and may drive the practice underground. Con also rightly cautions against equating scientific consensus with definitive proof, highlighting methodological limitations and the need for ongoing scrutiny. Finally, corporal punishment’s real-world effects depend heavily on context, severity, intent, and available alternatives—factors a universal law would overlook—while Con’s focused critique of evidence quality outstrips the Pro side’s extensive but often unsubstantiated list of harms.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
I am biased too pro but i do feel like he won.
I believe he gave more evidence and structure in this debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
While I think Pro started off strong, their failure to address Con's points weakened their performance toward the end of the debate, specifically: Con's arguments regarding causation and correlation and Con's accusation of "Argumentum ad Populum." I would have liked to see Pro address these arguments, instead of doubling down on the same arguments they repeated through-out the debate.
That said, Pro did offer a strong and well-sourced argument for banning corporal punishment of children. Con's initial rebuttal consisted of the assertion that immediate negative consequences can decrease negative behavior. It's a fair point, but a bit broad, It would have been nice to see some research to back-up their argument pertaining specifically to the corporal punishment of children. Con also offers an argument that negative outcomes of corporal punishment may not be to do with the fact that corporal punishment itself is being utilized, but how and why it's being utilized. This is an interesting point, and it would have been nice to see Pro address this potential nuance.
Con ended on a strong note, pointing out how Pro had misrepresented aspects of their arguments. Overall, it was close, but despite agreeing with Pro, I'm giving this one to Con mostly due to Pro's failure to address Con's actual arguments.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
this is wht i felt, so
Con had the stronger debate strategy because they:
/ Focused on logic and research methodology rather than overwhelming lists of claims.
/ Successfully debunked Pro’s argument style (Gish gallop, correlation vs. causation issue).
/Used more structured rebuttals.
Pro had strong points but lost because they relied too much on quantity over quality and failed to engage with Con’s direct criticisms.
I'll consider voting on this one
Tough topic. Good to see both sides doing a good job.
Debate needs votes! Pwease 🥺
This was a fun one.
You have like 5 days time limit. No rush.
I am writing and will respond as soon as humanly possible.
Bump
Anyone can accept tho.
Interested in debating this?