CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it okay to spank children
I have always believed in spanking to have a negative impact on the child's mind. I was spanked several times. Every time I wonder what I did to make them mad and that my parents hated me. I still to this day think about it.
Abuse: treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.
I used the definition of abuse as a prelude to my argument so that anyone who opposes my argument is, by definition, advocating child abuse.
---
No, it is not okay to use an abusive vehicle as a means to correct undesirable behavior.
#1: Corporal punishment is not necessary. There are multiple techniques for correcting misbehavior, none of which constitute child abuse (physically harming your child). The most effective being positive reinforcement.
#2: The effects of corporal punishment, be it apparent or unapparent, are always negative. The parent may find the child's conformity to be positive, but the physical and psychological consequences of such abusive actions, most would argue, are negative.
#3: If you know of no other way to correct your child's misbehavior than intentionally harming him or her, then you are not fit to be a parent. It should be monumentally counter-instinctual to find solace in hearing your child scream in pain and agony and to not wish to help; and what makes the situation even more wicked is that you are the negative stimuli causing their pain and agony--with intent...
But I am attacking people? I'm attacking those in favor of corporal punishment by asserting that they are irrational, incompetent child abusers whose nurturing instincts appear to be arrested when administering such violent and abusive discipline vehicles when there are more effective, nonviolent alternatives...
No, you are putting up an argument against a practice and not actually attacking people.
I'm attacking those in favor of corporal punishment by asserting that they are irrational, incompetent child abusers whose nurturing instincts appear to be arrested when administering such violent and abusive discipline vehicles
You barely did any of that. You made no such assertions. That's what made your argument so good. The one part where you clearly didn't take the point of view of the spanker while trying to pretend you were was the only bad part of your argument.
No, you are putting up an argument against a practice and not actually attacking people.
Now you are telling me the intent behind my arguments?
You barely did any of that. You made no such assertions. That's what made your argument so good. The one part where you clearly didn't take the point of view of the spanker[sic] while trying to pretend you were was the only bad part of your argument.
Premise #3 is the where the attack becomes clear, and most of what you claim I did not say is manifested in that premise. If you truly lack the comprehension skills I will point out each sentence that implied each claim you dispute, respectively.
As per your claim that I was not charitable to the opposition by not considering their perspective: When one is spanking their child their aim is to hurt them (or inflict pain), correct? And when one is administering such discipline it usually follows is a vocalization, or manifestation of the child's pain, right? Though, the parental instinct elicited when you hear you child in pain is, or should be, to alleviate that pain, right? So in the event that the parent is directly causing that pain which is manifested by the child's screams, it would stand to reason that such an action can be counter-instinctual (as it is the parents goal to prevent their child from being harmed, and console & aid them in the event that they are harmed).
The only way that you can coagulate your argument is if you claim that parents become deaf and blind when they are spanking their children, and that they do not know that they are hurting their children, which would be manifestly false.
Now you are telling me the intent behind my arguments?
No, you tried to claim your intent was actually said. I was discussing what you actually wrote, not anything about your intent. You talked about corporal punishment, and negative stimuli.
Premise #3 is the where the attack becomes clear, and most of what you claim I did not say is manifested in that premise.
It isn't there.
If you truly lack the comprehension skills I will point out each sentence that implied each claim you dispute, respectively.
I said you didn't say it, not that you didn't imply it.
When one is spanking their child their aim is to hurt them (or inflict pain), correct?
No, their aim is to prevent the bad behavior.
And when one is administering such discipline it usually follows is a vocalization, or manifestation of the child's pain, right?
Not necessarily.
The only way that you can coagulate your argument is if you claim that parents become deaf and blind when they are spanking their children
The phrase "this hurts me more than it hurts you" comes to mind. The parent knows it has to be done.
and that they do not know that they are hurting their children, which would be manifestly false.
Many of them don't think they are hurting the child in the long run.
So the problem is lack of comprehension skills, got it.
No, their aim is to prevent the bad behavior.
By doing what? Physically harming their child, right?
Not necessarily.
Okay, so children do not express signs of pain when being spanked? Moreover, I would argue that even if a child congenital analgesia, an extremely rare condition in which a child can feel no pain, the parents disciplinary tactics would not be to 'spank' their child since it has no effect. Yet, I did not need to to explain this.
The phrase "this hurts me more than it hurts you" comes to mind. The parent knows it has to be done.
Is a parent screaming and crying when they are spanking their child? And to base your argument on an unfounded, irrational claim does not solidify your position.
Many of them don't think they are hurting the child in the long run.
I'm not arguing about long-term effects; in the moment that they are spanking their child they know that they are hurting them. Moreover, their intent is to hurt them.
I apologize for giving you a compliment. There, you win.
By doing what? Physically harming their child, right?
Many don't want to harm the child.
Okay, so children do not express signs of pain when being spanked?
Yeah, sometimes.
Moreover, I would argue that even if a child congenital analgesia, an extremely rare condition in which a child can feel no pain, the parents disciplinary tactics would not be to 'spank' their child since it has no effect. Yet, I did not need to to explain this.
They can still be trained to believe that the next spanking will hurt much worse.
Is a parent screaming and crying when they are spanking their child?
Internally, yes.
And to base your argument on an unfounded, irrational claim does not solidify your position.
You don't understand my position.
I'm not arguing about long-term effects; in the moment that they are spanking their child they know that they are hurting them. Moreover, their intent is to hurt them.
The intent is to teach a lesson. They don't believe they are hurting the child.
#1: If you find that the only way to effectively teach/discipline your child is to physically abuse him or her, you should reevaluate your competency as a parent.
One must also note that studies have shown that Positive Reinforcement is the most effective method to get your child to behave 'desirably'. For example, instead of beating your child senseless for taking a cookie out of the cookie box, after you told him or her to not do so, you should reward your child with an extra cookie(s) when they do not do so.
#2: Why is your position presupposing that the only disincentives for child misbehavior is either corporal punishment, or ineffective threats?
#3: Lastly, why did you post on the "No" side implying that you disfavor abusive punishment (when clearly you are advocating child abuse)?
#1: I'm not quite sure what you're responding to, as I I agree with most of what you wrote here. Did you assume that by "threat" I meant "empty threat?" Because that was not my intent.
I fully agree that positive reinforcement is much better. I do not support spanking.
#2: Why is your position presupposing that the only disincentives for child misbehavior is either corporal punishment, or ineffective threats?
How does my position suggest this?
Edit: Also, I never said anything to suggest the effectiveness of the threat. Whether or not spanking is effective is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is "ok."
Lastly, why did you post on the "No" side implying that you disfavor abusive punishment (when clearly you are advocating child abuse)?
The way you stated your position is quite odd. Unless your equating 'threat' with 'spank' (which would be moronic) then I do not see how your position implies a disfavor of corporal punishment?
I do sincerely apologize if your intent was not to advocate abuse. Your phraseology, to me, implied that 'threatening' your child is not enough to correct their misbehavior (i.e. you would need to resort to physical measures ), which will answer your next question:
How does my position suggest this?
Again, my misinterpretation led me to believe that 'threatening' your child is not enough to effectively correct their behavior. I understand the efficacy is irrelevant to the debate, however, the ^previous sentence.
How does my position advocate child abuse?
By now you should realize that I misinterpreted your position to be in favor of corporal punishment. Assuming that your are in favor of spanking your child, you would essentially be advocating child abuse (though, you assert the contrary so by all means I appreciate that your are not sanctioning child abuse).
---
SN: You claim that you agree with "most of what I wrote." May ask what it is that you do not agree with as I believe my position is quite sound?
Unless your equating 'threat' with 'spank' (which would be moronic) then I do not see how your position implies a disfavor of corporal punishment?
When you spank your child you are constantly threatening them with the next spanking.
I do sincerely apologize if your intent was not to advocate abuse.
He already told you that he didn't advocate abuse. Just sincerely apologize without the "if"
Your phraseology, to me, implied that 'threatening' your child is not enough to correct their misbehavior (i.e. you would need to resort to physical measures ), which will answer your next question:
Threatening is a form of negative reinforcement. It is actually amazing that you can't make the connection since you brought up positive reinforcement.
When you spank your child you are constantly threatening them with the next spanking.
This statement is not intelligible enough for me to even attempt to discern its meaning... In other words: Please rephrase.
He already told you that he didn't advocate abuse. Just sincerely apologize without the "if"
Since one cannot know the certainty of anything then one must type "if" so that one will not make certain out of that which one does not, and cannot know for certain.
Threatening is a form of negative reinforcement. It is actually amazing that you can't make the connection since you brought up positive reinforcement.
It is not amazing (at all) to me that you are greatly ignorant about B. F. Skinner's writings. Spanking and threatening is a form of negative punishment. Negative reinforcement would be immensely counterproductive as a means to correct undesired behavior. One threatens one child so that the child will not do the undesired act, not the inverse that you so ignorantly asserted.
Aww, you can't read. Spanking and threats go together.
They may be related in a certain context; as per his context, they are unrelated.
Not true.
Philosophically and fundamentally you can never know anything for certain (except the fact that you think you know things for certain, but that is irrelevant to the context by which I invoked uncertainty).
Are you claiming that threatening a child so they won't do the undesired act is positive reinforcement?
Did I claim that, or can you not read? The answer to this question is explicitly stated in the post to which you are referring...
They may be related in a certain context; as per his context, they are unrelated.
Wrong.
Philosophically and fundamentally you can never know anything for certain (except the fact that you think you know things for certain, but that is irrelevant to the context by which I invoked uncertainty).
We all know for certain you are an asshole.
The answer to this question is explicitly stated in my post... (And I though thought that I could not read...)
It was, but then you claimed I said the opposite leading me to have to ask the question. When you say 2 different things I have to ask. Sadly you can't answer. But, I have the explanation of that (see above).
But you offer no cogent explanation as to why I am wrong....
We all know for certain you are an asshole.
The fallacy that implies incompetence.
It was, but then you claimed I said the opposite leading me to have to ask the question. When you say 2 different things I have to ask. Sadly you can't answer. But, I have the explanation of that (see above).
I never claimed that you said the opposite of anything... You (falsely) claimed that spanking and threatening is a form of negative reinforcement; I simply stated that you were emphatically wrong about negative reinforcement- which you were but refuse admit it.
I simply stated that you were emphatically wrong about negative reinforcement- which you were but won't admit it.
I meant punishment. I was wrong. You won't admit you are wrong about threats and spanking being similar enough to discuss together. You have already admitted that they are both forms of negative punishment, but you still cling to the idea that they can't be discussed together. You even claim to know the context of piratelfdog's argument better than he does.
Firstly, on what basis do you have for claiming that his meaning was obvious to "everyone else"?
Secondly, his statement would make perfect sense if he equated "threat" with "spank"; though, I hope that that was not his intent as the two terms are noninterchangeable.
Firstly, on what basis do you have for claiming that his meaning was obvious to "everyone else"?
No one else had your objection.
Secondly, his statement would make perfect sense if he equated "threat" with "spank"; though, I hope that that was not his intent as the two terms are noninterchangeable.
They are interchangeable since they are both forms of negative reinforcement.
Therefore everyone understood? Such an amateur fallacy.
They are interchangeable since they are both forms of negative reinforcement.
(1) They are never (grammatically) interchangeable, no matter the context; (2) As I previously stated: they are not forms of 'negative reinforcement', they are forms of negative punishment. You should not make arguments invoking data of a scientific book that you have not bothered to read....
You just said that they are forms of negative reinforcement, now you are claiming that they are forms of negative punishment?? This makes the second half of your statement irrational at best, and unintelligible at least.
You just said that they are forms of negative reinforcement
A mistake that you helped me correct.
now you are claiming that they are forms of negative punishment??
I corrected my position based on the wonderful information you gave me. You are now attacking someone merely for listening to you.
This makes the second half of your statement irrational at best, and unintelligible at least.
Except I didn't call it negative reinforcement and negative punishment in this one argument. It is only unintelligible if you don't read it by itself. You are making the ridiculous claim that threats and spanking aren't similar in any way and that they are both forms of negative punishment.
I never said that threats and spanking aren't similar. What are you talking about?
You said that it is ridiculous for me to claim that they are both forms of negative punishment, despite you conceding that you were wrong, and that they are both forms of negative punishment
They don't have to have the same meaning.
Each reply seems to detract from logic and rationality.
That's irrelevant. They are both things that should be avoided by good parents, right?
The former, yes; however, the latter can be expressed in a non-abusive fashion. For example, if a parent says: "Johnny if you take that cookie out the box you will not get to have dessert after dinner." That is a nonviolent threat, one that a non-abusive, nonviolent parent would make.
You said that it is ridiculous for me to claim that they are both forms of negative punishment
And that they aren't similar. Eliminating words from my argument changes what I said.
Each reply seems to detract from logic and rationality
You won't concede that they are similar in any way.
For example, if a parent says: "Johnny if you take that cookie out the box you will not get to have dessert after dinner." That is a nonviolent threat, one that a non-abusive, nonviolent parent would make.
And that they aren't similar. Eliminating words from my argument changes what I said.
"And" is a conjunction that would make the conclusion of an argument false if the statement that preceded or followed that conjunction is false. When you conjoined the former part of your sentence with "they are forms of negative punishment" that invalidated your entire position since you did concede that threats and spankings are forms of negative punishment, but then claim I am ridiculous for asserting that they are..?
You are ridiculous for claiming that they aren't. You are ridiculous for claiming that they aren't. You are ridiculous for claiming that they aren't. You are ridiculous for claiming that they aren't. You are ridiculous for claiming that they aren't. You are ridiculous for claiming that they aren't.
first of all what i would like to get clear is that we are HUMANS and thats the point of difference between us and the animals . we have the power of having control on your brain more than other any creature and at least we should act like that .
Would it be ok to spank a child ? ABSOLUTELY NOT ! it is true that in most of the cases a little spank is being used just to show our children that we "have always right " but that can be totally different . Being a child is such a difficult task , you are always in contact with new things that sometimes might lead you in a "wrong" path but at least we are on time to fix this . Making mistakes is part of our life people , so to fix this problems with violence would be totally wrong in my opinion . Just remember one thing that the history tells us : WORD IS THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON !
of course you can learn from you mistakes it is obvious you wont do the wrong thing twice unless you are a dumb person ! Learning from a mistake you have made means that now you are conscient that you havent done the right thing and you are still on time !
so its ok for you not to talk with your children first but instead giving them a punch ? excuse me but that would be completely silly
you might feel fear but believe me you wont learn nothing from spanking its just a short way to avoid the long convos that a parent has to make with his children
what about if you are right and you still get a spank from your parents would it be ok in this case ? Parents are not always right , there are different ways of prospective between a child an an adult
you might feel fear but believe me you wont learn nothing from spanking its just a short way to avoid the long convos that a parent has to make with his children
So, long conversations are how you learn from mistakes?
what about if you are right and you still get a spank from your parents would it be ok in this case ? Parents are not always right
The parent is going to lecture the kid about doing something wrong either way. The kid will be punished in some way even though they were right.
there are different ways of prospective between a child an an adult
You were never abused, so I don't expect you to understand the fact that spanking is traumatic child abuse., I was abused, so I have the right to speak on it. My father hiut me all the time to the point that I would pray for him to die. Oarents do not have the right to hit their kids.
I am not saying parents have to be perfect. That is a strawman. I am saying that parents hitting kids does make it abuse. No parents do not have the right to hit their kids. Kids have the right to feel safe.
I am not saying parents have to be perfect. That is a strawman.
You agreed with the guy who said that parents have to be perfect. It isn't a strawman, you agreed to the wrong thing.
I am saying that parents hitting kids does make it abuse. No parents do not have the right to hit their kids. Kids have the right to feel safe.
And, I am saying that the reason you gave is wrong. You say that it is abuse because kids don't feel safe, but kids still feel safe. How is it abuse if the child still feels safe?
No, it isn't. It doesn't even have to be abuse to be wrong.
Children have the right to feel safe.
And, you are claiming it is abuse even when the child feels safe?
Spanking is both slavery and child abuse.
For sure it isn't slavery. Why not call it murder too? Why not just throw out every thing that is bad and add it to the list. Why not say that it is also theft?
I am hoping that she is referring to the fact that they hit slaves and isn't just trying to equate it to something horrible just to make a point like Instig8tor did.
I'm a bit confused, to my knowledge spanking necessitates hitting (in every single prospect of the term)?
Hit: bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully; or, in the nounal form: an instance of striking or being struck.
That doesn't make it abuse. Not being the perfect parent is not the same as abuse.
Harming your child physically constitutes child abuse (esp. when done consistently).
I'm a bit confused, to my knowledge spanking necessitates hitting (in every single prospect of the term)?
She is talking about beating a child mercilessly.
Hit: bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully; or, in the nounal form: an instance of striking or being struck.
I am addressing the forcefully part. LibProlifer wasn't spanked as a child. She was beaten.
Harming your child physically constitutes child abuse (esp. when done consistently).
You have not demonstrated how the child is harmed by being spanked. Note: I would think if it was inconsistent it would be more abusive.
Yes it is. Kids often aren't old enough or mature enough to understand the consequences that the politically correct society would have us use to correct behavior. One thing that they really understand well at that stage in their life is what it feels like to get a spanking, and it hurts, and it's not a pleasant experience, this is also known as a deterrant. Having a kid sit in a corner and "think" about what they've done only gives them the opportunity to think of a way they can get away with it next time, since you are openly providing them that opportunity to contemplate the inefficiency of their previous attempt. Spanking is more of a zero tolerance kind of approach that says "whether you choose to reflect on it or not, just know that what you just did is absolutely not tolerated in this house."
Kids often aren't old enough or mature enough to understand the consequences that the politically correct society would have us use to correct behavior.
You don't need to use the concept of consequences to correct behavior. There are non spanking ways to correct behavior that don't involve discussing consequences.
Having a kid sit in a corner and "think" about what they've done only gives them the opportunity to think of a way they can get away with it next time, since you are openly providing them that opportunity to contemplate the inefficiency of their previous attempt.
Except, this doesn't happen with sitting in the corner. This is seen with kids who are spanked though.
Spanking is more of a zero tolerance kind of approach that says "whether you choose to reflect on it or not, just know that what you just did is absolutely not tolerated in this house."
I agree with all your points and not only are they well stated but they are clearly backed with evidence. It seems that the only case in this case is to vote "Yes"
The question isn't if spanking is effective to teach children, it's asking if it's okay, presumably from a moral standpoint. Is your argument "the ends justify the means"?
Well, first of all, who decides what constitutes words being meted out 'judiciously?'
And second, how many situations does this apply to? How is this justification different from someone who justifies beating their children? Or their spouse?
It is abuse in the eyes of God and of the Fourth Amendment which protects the right of people to be secure in their person. No one has the right to someone else's body.
What might that have to do with the response i wrote ? All children need a good attitude adjustment from time to time so if calls for a good butt whooping then so be it.
Of course. The opposition's arguments all revolve around the three points that 1) It is your job to tell other parents how to raise their children 2) Spanking is inhumane and 3) Spanking is ineffective.
First, let it be observed that the prompt states "is it okay to spank children" not "should you spank your children". Other parents do not tell you to spank your children, why do you have the right to tell other parents that they should not spank theirs? In a pluralist society such as this one, freedom of choice and will are key aspects which makes it what it is, to violate other people's right to discipline their child in order to make them a better functioning member of society would be to trample on the ideals of the pluralist society itself. That's not to say child abuse should be allowed, because Child Abuse is not spanking in any sense and illegal and perpetrators should be swiftly dealt justice to.
Next, we must address how spanking is inhumane. It is as inhumane as you lecturing your children on how staying past curfew is immoral. Spanking simply adds a minor physical aspect to this lecture, and makes it more memorable. But enough of that, the effectiveness will be addressed in a later paragraph. Since it done with the intent to help, not harm, it cannot be considered inhumane, even at the slightest degree. Using physical methods in order to better incorporate offspring into society has been a popular methods since the beginning of mankind, and as you obviously can observe, mankind is still here. It causes little detriment, emulating a net positive, and the objection that spanking is inhumane should be as quickly as discarded as the objection that water is in fact, not wet.
Lastly, opponents will attempt to claim that spanking should not be allowed because it is ineffective. However, the exact opposite is true. In an unbiased joint-study conducted by CNN analysts and BBC experts, it showed that children who endured spanking in their early childhood showed much better capacity for not only the ability to follow directions, but to show empathy and compassion for their fellow peers. Moreover, Children who have been spanked have a 42.58% reduced chance to commit minor crimes later on in their career, as proven by an open sourced study conducted by The Economists with support through commentaries from The Wall Street Journal.
Although this may seem like a trivial matter, it is, in fact a major one that has garnered attention on the national stage from Democrats and Republicans alike. Although there are opposing views, as with any debate and/or disagreement, the answer to the question "is spanking ok" is an undeniable yes as in a pluralist society parents have the freedom of choice in raising their own children, it is completely humane, and it promotes better integration into society for children who lack the basic moral values to do so independently. Thank you everyone, I invoke you to vote yes.
Spanking is not considered abuse, according to my dictionary contrasting to others' rote definitions found in Google. Spanking is a rather derogatory term for "disciplining," but either will work if your child is insolent or just a trouble maker. A "child" (rather a teenager) myself, I have gotten "spanked" numerous times, and yet I am thankful for this unpleasant yet effective discipline. In no way is it abuse if you are hitting a child for no apparent reason. Now THAT is considered child abuse. Spanking is a way that enables the child to reflect upon their mistakes and regret their decisions, rather than just locking them up in their room allowing them to do whatever they want. When you think about it, yes, the child may be affected by melancholia when hit, but remember:the parent is doing this for the sake of their child's future and personality.
Of course. The opposition's arguments all revolve around the three points that 1) It is your job to tell other parents how to raise their children 2) Spanking is inhumane and 3) Spanking is ineffective.
First, let it be observed that the prompt states "is it okay to spank children" not "should you spank your children". Other parents do not tell you to spank your children, why do you have the right to tell other parents that they should not spank theirs? In a pluralist society such as this one, freedom of choice and will are key aspects which makes it what it is, to violate other people's right to discipline their child in order to make them a better functioning member of society would be to trample on the ideals of the pluralist society itself. That's not to say child abuse should be allowed, because Child Abuse is not spanking in any sense and illegal and perpetrators should be swiftly dealt justice to.
Next, we must address how spanking is inhumane. It is as inhumane as you lecturing your children on how staying past curfew is immoral. Spanking simply adds a minor physical aspect to this lecture, and makes it more memorable. But enough of that, the effectiveness will be addressed in a later paragraph. Since it done with the intent to help, not harm, it cannot be considered inhumane, even at the slightest degree. Using physical methods in order to better incorporate offspring into society has been a popular methods since the beginning of mankind, and as you obviously can observe, mankind is still here. It causes little detriment, emulating a net positive, and the objection that spanking is inhumane should be as quickly as discarded as the objection that water is in fact, not wet.
Lastly, opponents will attempt to claim that spanking should not be allowed because it is ineffective. However, the exact opposite is true. In an unbiased joint-study conducted by CNN analysts and BBC experts, it showed that children who endured spanking in their early childhood showed much better capacity for not only the ability to follow directions, but to show empathy and compassion for their fellow peers. Moreover, Children who have been spanked have a 42.58% reduced chance to commit minor crimes later on in their career, as proven by an open sourced study conducted by The Economists with support through commentaries from The Wall Street Journal.
Although this may seem like a trivial matter, it is, in fact a major one that has garnered attention on the national stage from Democrats and Republicans alike. Although there are opposing views, as with any debate and/or disagreement, the answer to the question "is spanking ok" is an undeniable yes as in a pluralist society parents have the freedom of choice in raising their own children, it is completely humane, and it promotes better integration into society for children who lack the basic moral values to do so independently. Thank you everyone, I invoke you to vote yes.
