CreateDebate


Debate Info

67
72
Spanking Positive Discipline
Debate Score:139
Arguments:73
Total Votes:174
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Spanking (35)
 
 Positive Discipline (36)

Debate Creator

nicoleacola(10) pic



Spanking

Do you think Spanking is still the answer or do you belive in positive discipline for children

Spanking

Side Score: 67
VS.

Positive Discipline

Side Score: 72

I don't know about spanking the kids but I've found that a light, gentle, spanking for the wife yields positive results ;)

Side: Spanking
Darkb456(94) Disputed
2 points

This isn't even relevant, why does everyone keep voting it up?

Side: Positive Discipline

I guess there are a bunch of preverts with a spanking fetish out there ;)

Side: Positive Discipline
Jc41218(1560) Disputed
1 point

This isn't even relevant, why does everyone keep voting it up?

It is funny ;) that is why it is upvoted :)

Side: Spanking
5 points

Who is to say that a spanking can't be considered as positive discipline?

As long the spanking isn't too hard or too consistent, and it doesn't leave a mark, then I'm all for it. Oh yeah, and as long as there is a reason, o'course.

Side: Spanking
Integrity(73) Disputed
3 points

Children need consistency. If a parent uses spanking as a disciplinary measure inconsistently, it will be confusing to the child. Even if a parent thinks that spanking or hitting is justified, to the child it makes no difference. There is no reason to believe that spanking a child not "too hard" will lessen or eliminate long-term psychological effects.

With all of the studies and research on parenting now available, there are many alternatives to spanking. Simply being consistent, concerned and kind to children is effective. If a child does something that causes a parent concern, they should be curious. They can talk to the child about what they think and feel. Why is the child acting in this way? When did the bad behaviours start? Violence is not a solution.

Side: Positive Discipline
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

You could consistantly spank... that would be consistant.

You seem to be under the impression that spanking must be done out of anger? You know that that is incorrect right?

A good parent would know not to spank a child when angry, but to wait until they themselves were calm and able to explain the purpose.

I mean, it's all well and good all the stuff you say.

But it's not the real world. Kids are evil and dumb, and also extraordinarily resilient.

Spanking I promise you does not cause long term psychological effects. What does, is a parent who does not know how to be a parent, and instead always wants to be friends with their little hellspawn.

Side: Spanking
4 points

I was spanked and I turned out fine. From what I've read, many people in generations past spanked and few of them turned out to be bad seed. We wont know about this 'non-spank' generation for a few years but so far, I'd say that they're off to a bad start.

Side: Spanking
Darkb456(94) Disputed
1 point

It would seem so, but the skin of a frog makes it look so very different from us, but when we get it off, there is so little to tell them apart. My point is, even though things seem good, really they can be horrible, how do you know nobody in your life is really a bad person, how do you know you're not being manipulated.

Side: Positive Discipline
3 points

you juss have to do it a right way. give them warning. about 4 or 3. then if they dont stop thats when the spanking comes.

Side: Spanking
2 points

Studies have shown that the children who grow up with corporal punishment, tend to become depressive, self-loathing, close-minded, fearful and overly stressed. In addition, they tend to feel a deep seated hatred or fear of said parent, as suggested by the feeling of relief the children of authoritarian parents get when they receive word of their deaths. In retrospect, the most interaction I had with my father for several years is when he made such punishments and now look at me, I'm a shut-in, without any chance of ever having a decent social life, who lives purely to play computer games and watch anime, because those are the only two things in life that haven't been ruined for me by either that or my complete inability to do anything that requires any degree of coordination.

By contrast, children of authoritative parents, tend to be cheerful, open-minded and lead rich, fulfilling lives. The children of lenient parents are dependant on others and are extremely lazy, and the children of negligent parents are most often highly independent.

Side: Positive Discipline
2 points

I was reading James Cameron's (or Terminator fame) biography. His brother said that they knew that if they got in touble they'd be brought to the wood shed. They didn't even have a wood shed, yet they still didn't disobey. As I said before, I turned out perfectly, and I must say that I am glad I was spanked.

Side: Spanking
2 points

Just another thought, spanking is said to be done out of love. If they were being beat on, that is not spanking - it is abuse. I've known children with whom words didn't work. They would stand their for hours (literally) and scream their bloody heads off. You could talk till you lost your voice, nothing ever worked. Had they got just one good spanking across the ass, I'm sure they'd have turned out better. I did.

Please note that the child I am referring to in that story is not me. I attest to the story's validity.

Side: Spanking
1 point

lol I thought this was one of those naughty debates.

Anyways, the thing is. People are afraid to discipline these days. Back in the day, teachers had the authority to whack a kid on the arm with a ruler. Parents used to spank there kids all the time.

Now people get fired, sued, arrested for all kinds of crap. People are afraid to discipline kids! And these younger generations don't know discipline. Kids are walking all over their parents and all over their teachers. I say, put some fear in the little pricks.

I see people try to reason with their 3 year old kid. That doesn't work. Does spanking work, yes it does. It lets the kid know who is boss. and it builds character.

The generations that where spanked are doing much better than this one.

Side: Spanking
Integrity(73) Disputed
2 points

Just because something was done for a long time doesn't mean it's a good or effective thing to do. Slavery existed for many years; clearly that's not a persuasive argument (or an argument at all) for reinstating slavery. "Parents used to spank [their] kids all the time" is a description of how things were. Explain why it's better than non-violent forms of discipline.

What evidence do you have for people being afraid to discipline children? Clearly parents are exploring other methods of disciplining children. Do you reject all other forms of discipline other than spanking? What kind of research have you done on alternative methods?

When you say that spanking "works," do you mean that a child stops a certain behaviour out of fear that they will be physically harmed? Should that be a higher priority to parents than a child's physical and mental health? Is your definition of "building character" avoiding behaviours out of fear (not because you think they're wrong), fearing authority figures and learning that might equals right?

Please back up your assertion that "the generation that were spanked are doing much better". Which generations are you referring to? Define "better" and explain the correlation with spanking.

Side: Positive Discipline
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
0 points

"Just because something was done for a long time doesn't mean it's a good or effective thing to do."

I know.

"Explain why it's better than non-violent forms of discipline."

... I did.

"Do you reject all other forms of discipline other than spanking?"

Where in hell did you get that assumption? And why assume in the first place?

"What kind of research have you done on alternative methods?"

Common sense. I see it fail all the time.

"When you say that spanking "works," do you mean that a child stops a certain behaviour out of fear that they will be physically harmed? Should that be a higher priority to parents than a child's physical and mental health?"

I don't know why you quoted"works". And yes, until they reach around the age of 8 when they start to really know right from wrong. Then it is more effective to reason with them.

"Please back up your assertion that "the generation that were spanked are doing much better". Which generations are you referring to? Define "better" and explain the correlation with spanking."

No.

Side: Spanking
1 point

i see nothing wrong with spanking. there is a difference between spanking a nd beating. it depends on how far u take it. i was spanked as a child and i turned out fine. i hated getting spanked but it made me listen to my parents.

Side: Spanking
1 point

I am all for spanking...Spanking serves as positive discipline and as effective parenting just as long as it is done in a respectful manner and there is an absolute cause for it. Children believe that they are in control sometimes. I know this from experience with my one and a half year old son, as well as witnessing it from people in general. There comes a point when you have to show them who's boss. Spanking and beating are two different things and I believe that people have the two mixed up. If a person is against spanking, a little sting of a hit, I am force to believe that your child wears the "pants" in that "parent-ship". Sometimes talking doesn't solve the problem neither does the tone of one's voice.

Side: Spanking
1 point

I would guess that about half the "No Spanking posts" do not have children. I do and I rarely need to spank, but the option is available and they know it and govern themselves accordingly.

Side: Spanking
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

You mean they live in fear of the Giant that presides over them rather than behaving appropriately because of the Giant's logic and reason and ability to enforce sanctions and consequences that they find undesireable?

Positive Discipline is the ability to use their own humanity, their self interest, to the effect of desired bahavior - physical force is not necessary

Side: Positive Discipline
1 point

I was spanked as a kid....it worked great. I am a registered professional Geologist who has never been in major trouble and has never been in jail. Even though I was spanked, i loved my parents and they loved me. I had good grades in school, finishing high school with a 3.85 gpa, and being involved in more intellectual extra curriculars - state quiz teams, chess clubs, honors programs...etc.

I went to college at a major liberal university where this topic was once again spewed with venom by those who had a complete and utter lack of control over their emotions. Get a grip, people. There is a time and place for your emotions. Discipline is not one of them. For those of you who say parents do it for dominance, control, or because they hate their kids, its simply not true. Many parents who spank will tell you they hate to do it, and that it hurts them emotionally (hurts them, not the kid). However, the emotions are controlled and lessons are learned. It is similar to money. When emotions are involved in controlling money, its the fastest way to go broke. When emotions are involved in discipline, its the fastest way to lose the discipline and the child's incentive for staying on the right path.

While in college, I was involved in boxing. Some people may say "he learned to hit because he was hit!" Once again, this is simply not true. After many years of no physical punishment to me by parents, I was becoming unsettled inside, and found I was quick to anger and showing minor violent outbursts. Once I began boxing, being struck gave me a whole new appreciation for everything in my world and in me, and I have yet to exhibit violent tendencies or actions, even when engaged violently. Why? experience with it shows what can happen and how it is not worth it to be struck anymore. How do I keep from getting struck? I show people respect, courtesy, and I do not act like a smart ass. This is the whole basis. By preaching "positive reinforcement only" children are learning they can mouth off to be and be incredibly rude and only have the punishment of "words". This is until they become adults and mouth off to someone violent who pulls a gun or knife. The whole situation would be avoided by the use of courtesy and respect, which is completely undermined by positive reinforcement only.

People who believe they are "englightened" enough to preach positive reinforcement only are those in our society who actually believe they deserve the best of everything being given to them. The people who believe their wants and needs trump others. The kind of people who are so selfish, self absorbed and arrogant that they think they can do, say and act however they want. They become obsessed and think they are at a higher level than everyone else. Then they come onto debates like this thinking they are better, and proving it by using screen names like "Integrity". Hate to tell you, integrity means you do whats right, pay for whats wrong, admit when youre wrong, and do what you can to help others do the right thing. Preaching positive reinforcement only and making back-handed claims that all people who spank are child abusers is the complete opposite of "integrity".....

Side: Spanking
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
2 points

As one of the people whom you labelled "enlightened", I must dispute your rather patronising characterisation of us before moving onto the heart of the debate.

Of course I come into a debate thinking my argument is better than my opponents'. So do you (as evidenced by the strong stance you hold and your caustic criticism of your opponents), and most people posting here. If I thought my argument sucked, I wouldn't be posting them on a public forum, would I? If I seriously believed my arguments were weak, I'd work on strengthening them before I even considered raising them to my opponents.

Now, a "selfish" and "self-absorbed" person is someone who only cares about themselves. People who argue against childhood physical discipline are generally adults or near-adults (few children have the intellectual capacity or desire to ponder such questions at length), and hence are not the people who are affected by the results of such debates. Abolishing physical discipline will do nothing to satisfy their own wants and needs, because as adults they're not in danger of being physically disciplined anyway. It seems they're making a stance on this issue for the sake of other people - children. Thus, by their very act of opposing physical discipline, they are being unselfish.

Also, if you indeed "show people respect, courtesy, and... do not act like a smart ass", that's rather hard to tell from your post. Indiscriminately labelling everyone who disagrees with you about spanking as people who "actually believe they deserve the best of everything", "believe their wants and needs trump others", "are so selfish, self absorbed and arrogant that they think they can do, say and act however they want", "become obsessed and think they are at a higher level than everyone else", "come onto debates like this thinking they are better" - that seems to be the opposite of showing respect and courtesy.

Finally, onto the spanking vs no spanking debate.

I believe you when you and others say that you were spanked when you were children, and yet grew up fine. I'm not going to claim that children who get spanked will inevitably end up being immoral or violent. After all, many children born to very poor or abusive homes grow up to be normal, law-abiding citizens too. There are many opportunities from which a child can learn morality; even a child who was given physical discipline instead of education could learn to become informed and morally upright people from other sources.

Nor will I claim that children who are spanked will inevitably hate or fear their parents because they were spanked. A person generally wouldn't hate someone simply because of one particular behaviour of theirs. Depending on how that person is as a whole, we can be more or less tolerant of their flaws. A child who knew they were loved by their parents will usually not hold grudges over one single issue like spanking.

But to say that spanking often causes little or no long-term harm is completely different from saying that it is an ideal way to raise a child and should be continued.

If you spank or yell at your child, yes, they will stop whatever they were doing because they're afraid you will spank them again. But what does that teach them? That they should fear those more powerful than them, and do what they say because of the fear of punishment. That isn't integrity; that is oppression through fear.

Integrity is doing what you believe is right. The way for a parent to teach integrity to their child is to calmly explain their views to their child, and listen to what their child has to say in return - and then, of course, to be a good role model for their children by practising what they preach. Providing rational, sensitive, and thought-provoking information is about the only way to change someone's mind about something.

Did Tommy snatch a toy from his little brother's hand? Don't just spank Tommy; explain to him how his brother feels about this. Ask him - respectfully, not sarcastically - if he loves his brother. Ask him to imagine what he would feel like if someone did that to him. Ask him if he really wanted to make his brother suffer just so he can gain a slight benefit. Ask him if there wasn't another way he could have played with a toy without hurting his brother's feelings. Now you're not just scaring your child into submission. You're teaching your child to consider the perspectives and feelings of others, and to reason through their actions before making them, while at the same time practising what you preach by showing that you care for your children's feelings too.

And emotion must be involved in discipline - indeed for any form of moral or social education. After all, aren't you trying to teach your child to empathise with others, to build and maintain relations, to be a friendly, helpful, and conscientious person? How can you teach them any of that if you don't show them how much you care for them?

Side: Positive Discipline
Nick91983(269) Disputed
1 point

Positive Discipline doesnt mean that only words are used as consequences for improper behavior - positive just means that we dont use physical force to correct improper behavior. The fact that you said that "I was becoming unsettled inside, and found I was quick to anger and showing minor violent outbursts" demonstrates that you had a propensity for physical violence - as a child of "positive discipline" I can say that I have had no such violent outbursts. Although your situation is only one and thus generalizations cannot be made, It would be interesting to know if your violent outbursts were remnant inclinations from having been spanked or worse. Also, there are many factors relating to a person's having appropriate behavior and attained a generally productive and civil life, one being the ability to learn vicariously and another living in an otherwise positive environment as a child. The point I am making is that the spanking is unnecessary for proper adjustment. Most of the intelligent people who advocate positive discipline believe that consequences and sanctions are necessary, however sanction is very different than physical violence and it would be interesting if those violent outbursts would have been absent if your childhood had been the same except absent the spanking - my bet is that you would have turned out the same as you have. I dont think you make the case that spanking is either necessary or optimal - I would argue that it is unnecessary not optimal and that is creates less positive than it does negative. A stern voice was all i needed to curb inappropriate bahavior

Side: Positive Discipline
1 point

About the spanking children -- yes only when the children have gone bad to everyone which can hurt their parents' hearts that badly. Oh yeah I know, from long long time ago which we can call it as old generations, the parents get used to punish children by spanking with their hands and that cannot be happening this new era as we know and see, but I mean.. like if I notice my son/daughter do bad things so much and I cannot spank them as the "wake up call" for them such as telling them, even with high tones telling them not to do bad things, but then they still do bad things over and over again, you know what... Also, it all depends on the parents know where to spank, obviously.

Side: Spanking
1 point

slap some sense into the chilluns. Amercia has been raised on spankings no damn european shiit with timeout.

Side: Spanking
1 point

Spanking is a form of discipline and it teaches responsibility, by reinforcing the fact that bad behavior is punishable. It's not abuse. That's a whole different story.

Side: Spanking
Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

where is the line? and can you assent to the opinion that spanking is ok without being able to preside over the physical discipline of all parties who are administering this practice?

Side: Spanking
4 points

The effects of "spanking" can cause serious problems, not only physically but mentally.

"We've learned that spanking teaches kids that hitting others is morally correct. In other words, hitting is okay if the other person is doing something wrong and won't stop it.

We've learned that children who are spanked control their behavior to avoid being hit. But children of non-spanking parents tend to control their behavior on the basis of right and wrong. They learn to control their behavior without parental involvement. We know that spanking hinders the development of empathy, remorse or compassion. The child focuses on the pain, rather than the effects of his or her own behavior on others.

We know that corporal punishment used at the toddler age can reduce the degree to which children develop a conscience. Spanking stops behavior for the time being, but does not teach the child the right thing to do. Spanking chips away at the bond of affection between parent and child.

Parents who encourage or reinforce good behavior and teach or model the behavior they wish their children to have produce a number of desirable qualities within children. Some of these qualities include: positive self-concept, honesty, responsibility, compassion, problem-solving, self control and acceptance of self and others." ( http://solutions.psu.edu/Child_Youth_Development_167.htm )

http://www.newsweek.com/id/116788 ("Spanking may lead to aggression and sexual problems later in life...")

Side: Positive Discipline
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
5 points

As long as spanking is not given out of anger, and it is accompanied by calm explanation of why the child is being punished, it is far more effective than positive reinforcement.

Positive reinforcement works to a point, but parents are not the sole source of a child's positive feedback,

in fact, after a certain age, positive feedback from friends becomes far more important, making delinquent behavior more likely.

Parents who have not established dominance at some point will find it nearly impossible to control a child.

Spanking done correctly does not in any way "chip away at the bond"

so long as the bond is a proper one, that is the relationship between a teacher and protector and a child.

The problem is, parents are idiots,

they don't want to be a parent, they want to be friends.

Guess what, if you're your kids best friend anytime before they're in their mid-twenties and/or have kids of their own and finally "get it" - then you're kids are going to be some asshole adults someday.

Positive reinforcement is great, but sometimes a parent has to punish a kid. Kids aren't dogs, you can't just give them a treat and hope they don't piss on the rug.

Side: Spanking
Integrity(73) Disputed
2 points

There is no possible explanation you can give to a child that takes away the effects of physically harming them. "Mommy and Daddy are upset that you did X, so I'm going to hurt you so you won't do it again." Harming a child does not teach them anything positive. It does teach them to obey those who have the "power", to be afraid of authority figures, and to harm others who are weaker than themselves. If that is the kind of individual you want to produce, then by all means continue advocating spanking children.

What do you mean when you say that positive reinforcement works to a point? At what point does it stop working?

I strongly disagree with your statement that children are impossible to control without dominating them. Firstly, good parenting is not about trying to control the actions of a child. It's about teaching a child how to make decisions, how to act and why. Once a child grows up, and it's no longer convenient for a parent to physically harm them, the damage is done. If you don't like how they behave when they're older, what effects have been caused from spanking them when they are young? They know you can't do it now. They haven't learned to make moral decisions by themselves. They won't listen to your viewpoints, because they know you would coerce them to act the way you want if it was still possible for you to do so. How is this positive?

On what grounds is spanking the right thing to do? When someone is weaker then yourself, and they are doing something that you do not want them to do? When you are old and feeble, and your children are much stronger, should they then spank you if you are doing something they don't want you to do? It would work, wouldn't it?

Alice Miller writes on the subject ("Spanking is Counterproductive and Dangerous"), that spanking teaches:

"1. That a child does not deserve respect.

2. That good can be learned through punishment (which is actually wrong, punishment merely teaches the children to want to punish in their own turn).

3. That suffering mustn't be felt, it must be ignored (which is dangerous for the immune system).

4. That violence is a manifestation of love (fostering perversion).

5. That denial of feeling is healthy (but the body pays the prize of this error, often much later)."

I agree with you that parents should not try to be friends with their children; they should be friendly. There cannot be a proper bond between parent and child if the parent physically harms the child. A parent should be a "protector", and spanking them is not a form of protection.

"Kids aren't dogs, you can't just give them a treat and hope they don't piss on the rug." The difference between kids and dogs (and there are many), is that they grow up and can fight back; if not against the parent, then against themselves and others. Kids make mistakes, that is part of the development process. If children learn to be afraid of making mistakes, their ability to learn is hindered.

Parents choose to have or keep children, not the other way around. Children do not choose their parents.

Side: Positive Discipline
1 point

I agree with just about all of that.

But theres nothing wrong with being fiends with your parents, as long as there is discipline and balance.

But your right that dumb that people try to hard, to the point when they don't discipline their frickin kid.

Side: Spanking
2 points

One thing that people often forget is that not only do we pass our enviroment on to our childern, but also our genes. Talkative parents have talkative childern, not because the child has simply learned this behavior from their mother or father, but also because they have inherited that talkativeness directly. Steven Pinker, the reknown evolutionary psychologist and author, has shown that if one controls for heritability in the studys linking agressiveness with childhood spanking the correlation disappears. In other words, the child who is spanked is not learning agressive behavior. Rather, he has inherited it genetically from his parents who manifest their agressiveness with spanking. It might be true that parents who use corporal punishment have childern who grow up to be, on average, more violent, but there is no scientific basis to draw causation from that correlation. The correct view is that violent parents will have violent offspring, through genetic inheritance.

Everything else you said about "spanking chips away at the bond of affection between parent and child" and about parents who "reinforce good behavior and teach or model the behavior they wish their child to have produce ... childern with positive self-concept, honesty, compassion, acceptance, etc." is baseless in terms of the research that has been done, and sounds to me more like folk-psychology or conjecture.

Side: Spanking
Integrity(73) Disputed
1 point

It was not actually what I said, but rather it was a quote from an article from the Penn State University website. Here is the link again, to the full article: ( http://solutions.psu.edu/Child_Youth_Development_167.htm )

I don't understand how a study can "control for heritability" and find that the correlation with aggressiveness and spanking disappears. It seems to me that in parents who are not genetically predisposed to being aggressive do not present it in their parenting, and therefor it would not present in their children. How would you be able to prove what causes a child to be violent, if their parent is both genetically predisposed and brings aggressive behaviours into their child's environment?

I'm interested in knowing more about the research and studies you were talking about. Is it possible for you to paste a link or recommend a book on it?

Side: Positive Discipline
Darkb456(94) Disputed
-1 points

If you know for a fact that spanking children only causes problems, then why are you supporting it, oh wait.

Side: Positive Discipline
4 points

I'm against spanking, and I was spanked and physically assaulted in ways people do consider "discipline" but I'll always consider physical abuse. Discipline should have nothing to do with physical touch, period. I look at it this way- why does the parent feel the need to spank to teach a "lesson?" Isn't it the easy way out of a problem? Perhaps the lazy way? Perhaps rather a habit that's been going on for centuries that no one has the balls to give a second thought to and find an alternative? Spanking is about expressing power and for no other reason. In my opinion, it's for the parents convenience more than the child's. The parent spanks because they are annoyed or appalled, the kid cries and stops what they were doing for a little way, and now the parent is less annoyed because the kid has shut up. All the while the kid is starting to internally loathe their parent and using their geniousness to think of other ways to piss the parent off and get away with the behavior; there begins the process of rebelling. Overall, I think it's useless and immature parenting behavior.

Side: Positive Discipline
2 points

For those who support spanking as discipline for children, I suggest reading up on effects of the No-Spanking laws enacted in Sweden.

"Sweden changed their laws regarding physical punishment, even when it opposed popular opinion. By changing the legal structure of society, Sweden's laws allowed their people to better parents than their initial attitudes would suggest, and since physical punishment and child abuse are so closely linked, they have made significant strides toward reducing physical child abuse in Sweden as a whole."

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233338/the_effects_of_the_no_spanking_law_pg6.html?cat=37

Side: Positive Discipline
2 points

I disagree with spanking. I was spanked as a kid, and it made me afraid of my father.

It whipped me into shape, and I'm a good person with good morals and all that, but there must have been a better way to discipline.

Side: Positive Discipline
2 points

Violence doesn't work, period. There really is no need to debate it, every study I've seen has enforced that positive discipline works best. Yes, you have got to be the parent, but having your children fear you, and that you will hurt them, is hardly a healthy relationship.

Side: Positive Discipline
2 points

Any punishment that would anger or embarrass an adult does the same for a child. Kids aren't as clueless as parents would often like to think. It was the tradition in the Western world for the last couple thousand years for a husband to physically discipline his wife for pissing him off. Our society has grown out of spousal abuse for the most part and it's considered cowardly and unacceptable. Unfortunately, parents can still get away with mildly abusing their children simply because they want to be traditional and are rarely prepared to expend the amount of time necessary to raise a child. And for whatever reason, it's not okay to hit a child on the face or in the groin, yet hitting a kid on the ass is acceptable. Just because it doesn't do as much physical harm? A body is a body and any violent infliction to the physical body of a conscious being is an emotional detriment. Spanking does nothing but condition children. Discipline is meant to instill values and ethics.

Side: Effective Parenting
2 points

I've got a four-year-old son. Never spanked him once. Taught him how to use words and that was as much work as I had to put into discipline. We have conversations about unacceptable behavior, and it's made him an incredible critical thinker who doesn't take shit from anyone who tries to treat him with any less respect than he deserves.

Side: Effective Parenting

spanking is what bad parents refer to when they dont know what to do. either that or they are stupid conservatives who are driven by the tradition to spank their kid when he/she does something wrong

Side: Positive Discipline

I was raised with positive discipline so I know it works. There are times, however, when I see a child act out so badly even I would like to gie them a swift kick in the you know where but that's the fault of the parents not being parents. Parents need to set up a positive athmosphere in which their children know boudaries and adhere to them. All kids get out of line here and there but that doesn't mean spanking is the answer to your troubles. Talk to your kids and have them understand that you are the parent and they are the child and that they must listen or else some kind of punishment will be in order.

Side: Positive Discipline
1 point

I, too, was raised on positive discipline, and believe it to be a fine way to manage behavior. A good talking to could make me cry with regret without a hand being laid upon me.

As pointed out by many others, spanking leads children to think that hurting others who do something wrong is an ok way to treat them. It sends the wrong message.

Side: Positive Discipline
1 point

Abuse of children is not on, however if an infant child is to do something repeatedly such as touch something that could be dangerous than a small tap on the hand and a firm no is definately the best option.also then once that infant then becomes a small child and has begun to interact with other children it is also wise to give your child a quick contolled spank on the butt in the moment should you may witness violence of any sort from your child to another.And of course a firm explanation of your behaviour to your childs behaviour.Then from schoolage onwards punishment should not consist of any spanking. no other forms of punishment as far as physical,mental abuse should be applied.

Side: teach dont taint
Integrity(73) Disputed
1 point

How can hitting a young child teach them not to hit others?

The best way to keep an infant safe from danger is to make sure there is nothing dangerous in their environment, as much as possible. When a child is too young to verbally communicate, "tapping" them and raising your voice may to teach them to stay away from something out of fear (does anyone have any evidence for this?), but surely there are other things you can do that won't alarm or confuse them.

I agree with you that verbal or mental abuse shouldn't be substituted for spanking when children get older. Sadly I think it often is.

Side: Effective Parenting
dacey(1036) Disputed
1 point

hmmm and how do you propose we do that when this world consists of more than just danger.how naive and vulnerable children are. we must guide them right and sometimes in some situations such as those that i described above it is in the best interest of the child to do so for example in the situation of your child being violent to another child should most definately be dealt with as i described no other way as to deal with this situation in. Any other way is abuse and neglect as someday your " up mummys skirt brat" could get bashed by someone who isnt going to use soft words to deal with your "cotton wool kid"

Side: teach dont taint
1 point

i am totally against spanking i was spanked when i was younger and my parents always used to say it hurts me more than it does you and its bull crap . im sorry i willl not spank my kids they will just have to work out or be grounded or sumthing.. take something away from them that they love to do

Side: Positive Discipline
Nick91983(269) Clarified
1 point

no need to say you are sorry, spanking is a bad thing, taking things away from a child or limiting their freedom modifies behavior so much better than abuse does

Side: Spanking
1 point

Spanking is demonstrating that physical actions are the appropriate way to react to any kind of issue, even non-physical ones. This is horrible because it causes an escalation in any conflict, makes people think that the most extreme option is a normal and logical first option to excercise. It also suggest the unreasonable notion that might makes right - "I am right about the issue not for reasonable and logical points, but rather because I can beat you up." This doesnt make any sense insofar as the rightness or wrongness of any given position depends on things that are relevant to the subject matter not the physical abilities of one of the arguing parties.

Physical altercations are never good things, they rarely if ever result in a positive outcome - the rare case of a positive outcome is where there is only a marginal gain.

Positive discipline also suggests that the use of reason and logic are preferable and that sanction is the most fruitful means to attaining appropriate behavior (and I am not talking geopolitically here). Appealing to the reasoning faculties of a child not only makes them feel respected, but it also makes them able to think more critically generally because they are being forced to excecise this part of their mind.

Spanking is also a parent essentially saying that they are neither smart enough or mature enough mentally to out-smart their children or attain proper behavior without the use of force.

Spanking is unproductive and unreasonable

Side: Positive Discipline

Spanking is corporal punishment and it is wrong. Corporal punishment leaves a mental scar that gets carried on to adulthood.

Side: Positive Discipline
0 points

for those childless people on here that have an issue about smacking, not child abuse , smacking, good luck & i wish you all the best in the future.

Side: teach dont taint