Should parents be allowed to spank their children?
Yes, to a limit.
Side Score: 30
|
No Way it is wrong
Side Score: 64
|
|
|
|
1
point
I am for some form of spanking early in the development of children. Spanking can be used as a deterrent to help them follow rules and structure. Explaining why they are being spanked and affirming your love for you. Spanking is best used early in a child's development vs being an 18 year child with some form of discipline and becoming a future prisoner. Side: Yes, to a limit.
Yes. Many kids have been raised being spanked when being disobedient. By definition, spanking is striking someone's buttocks with an open hand. This is not child abuse. The child is not being slapped in the face, punched, or beaten, that is abuse. Spanking is discipline. I grew up being spanked whenever I did something wrong, that way I learned that actions have consequences. Spanking does not hurt very much and is only temporary. It does not make bruises or marks. The worst spanking does is make your butt red and occasionally a little sore. But again, the physical effects are only temporary, the effects spanking has on the child's behavior are really for the better. A point against corporal punishment is that "parents are not trained to deal with misbehaving children. They do not have the resources or choices to handle the situation. As a result the immediately react by smacking or hitting the child, even if there is another solution to the problem." On the contrary, parents are the best to deal with misbehaving children. They could have had other children, had little siblings to take care of, or had their parents help them. Also, parents do not immediately hit their child if they start crying or cause a problem. If a child misbehaves, the parent will, in almost all cases, give the child a warning and/or put them in timeout. If they keep misbehaving the parent might spank them. Another point is, "Children usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked. The primary lesson the learn appears to be that they should try harder not to get caught." I, being spanked myself, can tell you for a fact that that is not the case. When spanked, the child is upset, yes, but they learn not to do whatever it is the parent spanked them for or they will be punished. The child won't misbehave because they know if they do they will be spanked. In conclusion, spanking is a quick and effective way to discipline a child. Once again, spanking is not punching or beating. That is child abuse, striking a child on the buttocks is not. Side: Yes, to a limit.
Should they be allowed, as in, not punished if they do spank their kids? Humm, to forbid would be just to pass on the "spanking" from the parents' hands to someone else's. Just that this time, the spanked one would be the parent... Now I will disregard the "allowed" and take the question as Should parents spank their children?. No, they shouldn't, for the kid's own good. You don't want your kid to grow up doing the right thing just because they are afraid of punishment. Instigating fear is not educating, just conditioning. You condition your kids to depend on fear to behave. To educate would be to make them understand they should do certain things for their own good and everybody else's. Conclusion: To forbid spanking is the wrong way to make parents understand they shouldn't beat up their kids, as spanking is the wrong way to educate kids. Side: stop the perpetuation of fear
I didnt know spanking was a way to educate kids it is means of punishment not to educate. When educating you correct them with showing and words to educate and to teach. To punish you can try to talk to them and use other means first give them chances but as we all know if this does not work then spanking has to be another way to let them know what the deal is. Side: No Way it is wrong
|
5
points
It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means. Side: No Way it is wrong
if a parent who can't control there kids has to resort to physical pain to keep them in line, what message will that reverberate in the adult that come next, maybe violence is an answer to qural. I do not agree, although i accept that it is not excessive and that some parents need to spank,But it is not the way to deal. kids are not born to misbehave, they learn these things from adult, if a kid act's up he/she wants attention and a good parent should nurture there kid by giving time to them. Side: No Way it is wrong
5
points
I disagree with you. Most every child will and do act out. They do so to push the boundries to see what is and is not acceptable. It is human nature to do so. I am not only a parent but a Teache as well and I see, on a daily basis, children from 1 and up pushing the limits. I strongly agree with spanking a child as long as it is not harsh or rough, a little swat on the hand or bottom does not foster violence in shildren and will not make them violent or angry adults! My siblings and I were all spanked as children, and when we were we knew our parents meant business, and none of us turned out to be voilent, angry or depressed adults. The only thing I do agree with in your statement is the fact that parents should nurture their children and give them plenty of atttention, having said that, children also need to know that there are boundries they cannot cross and in the real world they do not get away with everything and do not get everything they want. Side: Yes, to a limit.
Firstly, parents do not "quarrel" with a 3 year old. Secondly, parents don't need to spank their children. Children need discipline but the way the sentence is phrased makes it sound like a drug. Parents spank their children to teach them right from wrong, not for enjoyment. And lastly, kids do not learn to misbehave from their parents, to make a mistake is human nature. Side: Yes, to a limit.
4
points
4
points
3
points
1
point
|