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.
To Spank or not to Spank?
This has been a hot topic for many years.. While there are no laws saying we can not spank our child, it is becomming more more seen as abuse. I will remain neutrul as much as I can, since I have experienced both approaches and I can see how different things work for different kids..
I believe that spanking is a useful and necessary tool in raising children, and that when delivered properly does not constitute abuse.
The goal is not to inflict pain and cause fear, the goal is to inflict discomfort and discourage the activity. Spanking should be performed calmly, not out of anger. The punishment should be explained to the child before it is delivered. Spanking should not be performed with anything other than an open palm, and only on clothed skin with a restrained amount of force. You can gauge the amount of force on yourself- give an open handed slap to your own thigh. The correct amount of force will cause discomfort, but without any lingering stinging sensation in either your hand or thigh.
A spanking performed in this matter gets the message across without engendering fear in the child. I spank my son thusly in two scenarios. 1) As punishment and a deterrent for activity that places himself or others in danger, and 2) As an escalation if he is refusing to comply with a lesser punishment.
More forceful punishment doesn't help anybody out; the object is to associate discomfort with the undesired activity in the childs mind. Using excessive force skips over that association and instead associaties the parent the pain and fear in the childs mind. It is an easy line to cross, and is one of the main reasons that discipline should never be avoided while angered if at all possible.
If you're striking bare skin, if you're using a closed fist, if you're using another object, if you're causing lingering pain or leaving any marks (even just a temporary reddening of the skin), you are going beyond spanking and are beating your child- that is abuse, and is unlikely to get you any result other than your child fearing you and learning to not get caught rather than learning to not take the undesired action.
I'm of the mind that yelling at your child is more abusive and traumatic than a properly delivered spanking, but I also acknoweldge that most parents who spank go quite overboard with it, to the detriment of all involved.
I have worked with children for a number of years and I always find it difficult to imagine how 'cool-headed' spanking works. I have only ever seen it done in anger and I guess due to this experience it makes me question how sincere you are being with yourself when you say that you don't do it in anger.
To me all punishments should have an explanation before them. This is very easy with punishments such as times out and loss of privileges. I presume that it is impossible with spanking. It leads way to children feeling unfairly treated.
I have only ever seen it done in anger and I guess due to this experience it makes me question how sincere you are being with yourself when you say that you don't do it in anger.
It was the result of my initial attempts to discipline my son without using spanking or yelling at him. I always felt that the point of punishment was not vengeance, and also noted that punishment delivered while angry often (if not always) completely missed the point of discipline in that it distracted from the action in question rather than reinforced the desired behavior, and was often objectively disproportional to the actual offense committed when reflected on later. Ever since that realization, I made it a point to calm down when angered before carrying out any kind of punishment. Maybe it's not fair to say that I'm never at all angry when I punish my son, but when I am the anger has always cooled and I am always calm when it is delivered.
To me all punishments should have an explanation before them. This is very easy with punishments such as times out and loss of privileges. I presume that it is impossible with spanking. It leads way to children feeling unfairly treated.
I agree here, but it is not impossible with spankings. I calmly tell Conner "Because of X, I will now have to give you a spanking." or something to that effect, carry out the punishment (which as noted previously, usually is not a spanking), then ask him what he did wrong and if he understood why it was wrong.
The punishment should be explained to the child before it is delivered.
The explanation before a 'physical' punishment often times is ignored due to the impending stimulus being in juxtaposition with such. And that being so does nothing for the child's rationalization and/or realization of what it did wrong. And an explanation after is, of course, missed due to high levels of negative emotionality.
Don't both of these positions assume the negative stance on spanking. I'm in support of it either way, and also spanking is illegal (at least here in the states) it's on the same wavelength as abusing your wife or pet, and you can go to jail for it, or be removed from the child's life. It's just kind of like jaywalking though. So insignificant that no one really upholds it or thinks twice.
Back to the topic at hand though, I support spankings. Physical discipline if done right, is very direct, and very quick to get a point across. Don't fight in school, thwap. Don't curse thwip. Don't plot world domination sting. Eventually you start learning what's right and what's wrong, at least by the standards of the one delivering the spanking.
Speaking specifically of myself, I got spankings as a child, and they taught me not to do the things that got me spankings. They also made me fear the repercussions after doing what I knew I wasn't supposed to do. Eventually I avoided doing those things all together.
Each state has different laws regarding what is abuse and want isn't. This can be a fine line, anytime a child is left with marks of any kind, or even words and be abuse, we are not here to discuss the different forms of abuse. A swat on the rear end with a open hand. I should have made it more clear. Now I will post a link to different laws in each state. Spanking is not illegal!
It was stated that it is not against the law to spank a child. I heard that a child could turn their parents in to the police for being spanked. I hope that is not true. It's the Democrat party trying to equate spanking with abuse. It's quite ironic that the party of Late term Abortions for any reason would dare mention spanking being a form of abuse. Can we all spell hypocrisy?
I don't have a problem with spanking. You have to pay attention to what works best for different kids though. Spanking simply doesn't work for some kids, while another punishment would work, such as taking away privileges. AGHHHH!
Although there are many ways to discipline a child, I consider spanking an effective way of doing so. Sometimes words are not enough to get through a child's mind and therefore a more physical approach is required. Of course, spanking should be done in such a way that it doesn't inflict any serious damage on a child. Some light-handed spanking is enough to punish a child. This will make sure that they remember not to repeat their mistake or else they will be spanked again. I wouldn't call spanking 'abuse' since it is used to teach a lesson rather than to maliciously injure the child.
since it is used to teach a lesson rather than to maliciously injure the child
So what if I take a guy out of car and punch him to teach him a lesson as to driving badly? Should that be legal? No, of course not, that's actual assault. Whether it's your intent or not, you're harming the child. How can you tell? They cry. Have you heard a kid cry? Personally, it melts my heart.
Also, why is it only okay for you to hit your kid between certain ages? I can hit a 6-year-old, but not a 6-month old or a 16-year-old. Why? Don't say it's because they don't understand, because that's a ridiculous argument for essentially abuse.
Not an expert on this, but from what I understand, using positive reinforcement is generally more effective than negative. Establishing a reward system for good behavior and whatnot as opposed to punishing negative. And we don't really need to be teaching our children that violence is the way to solve problems.
I was spanked as a child for wrongdoing and due to that I soon learnt that if I did something wrong I would get another spanking. Spanking as a form of punishment for something a child has done wrong, as long as it is within reason, is not violence for the sake of it. The problem I see with the argument for no spanking is that the children soon learn that if there is no serious repercussion for what they do, they can just run riot and know that there is nothing major a parent (or a school teacher) can do. I have heard it from childrens mouths where they say "I might get an evening's detention... Big deal"
Clearly you haven't had a spanking. It doesn't hurt for just a second and those who respond in that way would have a masochistic streak in them which as far as I am aware is extremely uncommon in children.
You're right, I wasn't spanked. And yet I was a pretty obedient child who didn't really start getting into trouble until I was too old for spanking. I will also point out that when my parents taught me that violence is not the answer, I couldn't accuse them of being hypocrites.
But yes, its only going to hurt for a brief time. Any kid who has broken a bone or had a legitimate injury can figure that out. If you are spanking hard enough for to hurt for a day or two, that's physical abuse.
No parent has a right to their child's body. No parent has the right to make their child feel unsafe. It is assault to spank a child. It is wrong to hit someone out of anger.
This is ironic to me because of your views on child abuse coupled with your views on abortion. The irony is that pro life people believe that a mother does not have the right to kill the child living inside of her.
Without the reasonable chastisement defence, any touching of a child is an assault. Are you saying that no adult should ever put hands on a child in order to punish them? No naughty steps etc?
Sure. Lets say I have a kid. They try to touch a stove. Instead of assaulting them, I yell "dont touch the stove". I can even stand in front of the stove, but I cant assault them.
I don't think that is an effective way for a child to learn. A 18 month old is not going to understand that. You have to move the child away from the stove - this would be an 'assault' (arguably).
Imagine though that it was an older child. A 8 year old. He continually goes to touch the stove (bad example but nevermind lets go with it...) even though you've told him not to touch it. Would there be absolutely no negative consequence ever?
Another scenario..if a child hits his siblings, what would you do?
Verbal punishment, not physical... is completely ineffectual. If telling children to do something or not was effective, there would be no need for punishment in the first place.
So I presume you're not just talking about talking, but rather yelling? Yelling at your child, in many ways, is as bad as beating them- and is certainly worse than a properly delivered spanking.
There is a key difference between beating and spanking. Much of what many parents refer to as spanking is in fact beating. See my explanation on the other side.
Nobody has the right to abuse you emotionally either. Your mind belongs to you as well- and as I've already indicated, yelling and other forms of emotional abuse can be as damaging or more than physical abuse. A properly delivered spanking is preferable to either.
Nobody has the right to abuse you emotionally either. Your mind belongs to you as well- and as I've already indicated, yelling and other forms of emotional abuse can be as damaging or more than physical abuse. A properly delivered spanking is preferable to either. That is a beautiful thing to say. I agree now.
I also need to support what you said, as I was in a marriage that was more like a prison. I used to tell him to just hit me and get it over with because the words he spewed hurt way more than when he hit me. The pain from being hit, goes away, the pain from the words last forever.
I agree that we should never hit out of anger, but a swat to a child who runs out in traffic may be the only thing that will show them that they will get hurt if they do it again.
It's a primitive method of discipline and is mostly used by people who don't have enough money to reward their kids with cool stuff for good behavior. So basically, it's for dumb and/or lazy parents.
It also indirectly teaches your kids to resort to violence as a means to fix a problem.
If it's not physical abuse, it's still mental abuse, because it's similar to torturing someone to get what you want, but on a smaller scale.
Torture always causes some sort of psychological damage.
Two years ago, my son was pushed down at school, I have always told my boys to stick up for your self because we can't depend on someone else to. So my son stood up and punch this kid and knocked his tooth out.. ( the tooth was already lose and was gonna come out anyways) I get a call from the school telling me that both boys were gonna have to do detention?! I was like um didn't this other boy start it and push my kid? The answer was yes. So I ask what would you have had my son do instead of defending him self?
We'll he said " he should have told a teacher.
I said "Sir" my son has told about the bullying many many times as I have as we'll. nothing was done about it. If anything he was treated worse. I told my son that if this kid bothered him ever again that he should punch him. So I will be picking my child up after school today. And it you have any problems with that then we can talk about it, but if I was you I would let this go. Because out of 4 times I have contacted you concerning my son and this other boy about being bullied, you answer was we will speak to the parents. . But nothing stopped or changed. And I didn't spank my son to teach him anything. I used time outs and a spoon full of room temp vinegar. If that didn't work I would take away something. But we are POOR and since poor people are lazy I am guessing you assumed my son punched that kid because I was lazy and broke so I spanked him at home, and this was his way of learning to deal with spoiled rich kids who never have to own up to anything.
Personally I think your lazy. We live in the real world, and it gets messy. Sometimes we have to handle things a bit different in order to teach right from wrong. What ever makes me a bad parent in your eyes means nothing to me. Because I have raised 2 respectful boys who are well mannered, we'll behaved. Nobody like to be treated bad. But unless you have been bullied you have no idea what it is like. And sometimes the Bully needs to be put in there place. And I can bet that this kid (the Bully) was beat at home. But since I very rarely spanked my kids they only use it to defend themselves.
Most kids seek attention, no matter what form it takes.
If misbehaving garners more attention than when they do well they will be more inclined to misbehave.
Rewards don’t have to consist of prizes; they can be as simple as positive, encouraging dialog and attention.
In the same sense, punishment doesn’t have to take the form of physical or verbal violence. Perhaps the most controversial and yet the most demonstrably effective way of combatting misbehavior in kids is simply ignoring it. It’s a punishment because the child doesn’t get the attention they crave and it teaches them that they will have to earn attention a different way. This HAS to be counteracted with rewards though (praise and recognition of good behavior) otherwise the child might continue to increase the severity of their misbehavior and potentially endanger themselves or others.
Do you have any reliable statistics that back up the claim, "most kids seek attention."?
I agree.
Do you have any reliable psychological research, that indicates the general efficiency of that method?
The reason that type of method isn't efficient , is because, the child can simply go elsewhere to misbehave. They might stop misbehaving at home, when you ignore them, but that does not mean that everyone else will ignore them.
And what about the kids that just misbehave because they are bored?
Will ignoring them work, if It's not attention that they are seeking, but thrills? I think not.
Do you have any reliable statistics that back up the claim, "most kids seek attention."?
No. But even if I did, statistics aren’t very reliable in the first place. What do you need them for anyway?
Do you have any reliable psychological research, that indicates the general efficiency of that method?
No. If you’re interested though, I’m sure you can find some on the internet.
They might stop misbehaving at home, when you ignore them, but that does not mean that everyone else will ignore them.
Then everyone else will have to deal with a misbehaving child. I don’t see how this disputes my point.
At any rate, the goal is to teach the child that misbehavior (as a form of getting attention) is not acceptable no matter who your with. With enough practice, the child won’t seek attention through misbehavior even if they are with someone else.
And what about the kids that just misbehave because they are bored?
There are plenty of activities a child can do that are acceptable, if they misbehave instead, it is a clear indicator that the child isn’t receiving enough positive attention.
Will ignoring them work, if It's not attention that they are seeking, but thrills? I think not
If they are seeking thrills by misbehaving, then yes, ignoring them will take away that thrill.
Provide evidence, so that your claims actually have some ground.
I see that you're just talking out of your ass now and know nothing of child psychology.
It disputes your point because it indicates the method useless.
This is about completely stopping the child from misbehaving, and not just about getting rid of misbehaviour in a select few areas.
Ignoring them ONLY works if they are misbehaving for ATTENTION, so how is ignoring them gonna stop them from seeking thrills, since its not ATTENTION they are misbehaving for? (Rhetorical question)
Provide evidence, so that your claims actually have some ground.
Referencing the numerous articles that validate what I claim will do nothing to convince you at this point, you’re too hardened by your pride to admit that I’m right.
Besides, I’m not interested in proving anything to you, you asked what kind of rewards could a poor person provide their children, and I gave one. Positive attention is a reward which can incentivize good behavior. A reward doesn’t have to be a physical prize.
I see that you're just talking out of your ass now and know nothing of child psychology.
Well no, I speak from experience, I have three daughters.
Funny you should mention child psych, I studied it in college, but that’s irrelevant. Psychology is a very indistinct subject; studies are based on numerous conditional factors.
It disputes your point because it indicates the method useless.
Saying “They might stop misbehaving at home, when you ignore them” admits that it works. And stating “but that does not mean that everyone else will ignore them.” Does nothing to disprove that it works, it only indicates that some people may not use the method.
Besides, acknowledging that its falsifiable only validates its effectiveness.
This is about completely stopping the child from misbehaving
I do not posit any such goal, nor do I think it’s even practical. If this is what you seek to do then I sympathize for you… and your children.
Ignoring them ONLY works if they are misbehaving for ATTENTION, so how is ignoring them gonna stop them from seeking thrills, since its not ATTENTION they are misbehaving for?
I didn’t claim that it would always work; just that it is demonstrably the most effective way in reducing misbehavior in children.
Regardless, why do you suppose misbehaving is so thrilling to a kid?
1. You've never even tried, so you can you even know?
2. I thought it was obvious that I was asking for a reward method that works. Oh well. Derpa Herp.
3. If its not practical, then its not efficient. So, its not a good replacement for spanking, and a replacement method is what I've been asking for since the start of this. Not directly, but it was the point of me asking.
4. No where in that link, says, or implies that if a claim is falsifiable, then it validates a claim's effectiveness. It only agrees that the claim may be true. Fail.
5. It's not the misbehaving, itself, but the activity they are doing that is seen as misbehavior, which gives them the thrill.
They don't think, "Owh! I'm gonna go misbehave! Derp!". They just do what they deem as thrilling.
If you don't want to have a proper debate, just stop responding.
You say that you have no interest in proving anything to me, and yet you've typed several paragraphs, in defense to your point. Much contradiction.
You just look like another "danny troll" to me, now.
You've got no decent responses for my arguments, because you're only good at looking as if your a good debater, by responding to your own alt accounts, with planned responses/conversations.
1. You've never even tried, so you can you even know?
Never tried what?
2. I thought it was obvious that I was asking for a reward method that works. Oh well. Derpa Herp.
And I gave one. Positive attention is a reward. Furthermore it’s a reward system that parents can provide their children regardless of their economic status.
3. If its not practical, then its not efficient.
Agreed. Attempting to completely eliminate misbehavior in children is not practical, I can’t think of any method of parenting that would show to be efficient in doing that.
Instead, I proposed a practical solution. Instead of trying to eliminate misbehavior completely, I suggest that a parent should understand the cause behind misbehavior and seek to reduce it. This is both practical and efficient.
So, its not a good replacement for spanking, and a replacement method is what I've been asking for since the start of this.
Even spanking doesn’t eliminate misbehavior completely.
Positive attention is a good replacement to spanking because it enables the child a reason to do good, and something to lose (they respond to consequences). Negative attention (scolding, spanking) doesn’t give the child a reward to strive for, they don’t have a reason to do good because they haven’t been shown one. And when it comes to attention, getting spanked is preferable to totally being ignored in a child’s eyes.
4. No where in that link, says, or implies that if a claim is falsifiable, then it validates a claim's effectiveness. It only agrees that the claim may be true. Fail.
I referenced you the link to provide you the meaning of falsifiability.
Just because the link doesn’t explicitly say “validates a claims effectiveness” doesn’t mean that’s not what falsifiable means.
If my statement bothers you that much, or makes you think its a "fail" I'll reword it, but the meaning stays the same.
“Besides, acknowledging that it’s falsifiable only lends more reason to believe it’s true.”
5. It's not the misbehaving, itself, but the activity they are doing that is seen as misbehavior, which gives them the thrill.
I wasn’t suggesting that it was misbehaving itself. But why do you suppose the activity they are doing is thrilling to them?
Why is hitting a sibling, or yelling back at a parent, or throwing food on the ground thrilling to a kid?
They don't think, "Owh! I'm gonna go misbehave! Derp!". They just do what they deem as thrilling.
If you don't want to have a proper debate, just stop responding.
You say that you have no interest in proving anything to me, and yet you've typed several paragraphs, in defense to your point. Much contradiction.
You just look like another "danny troll" to me, now.
You've got no decent responses for my arguments, because you're only good at looking as if your a good debater, by responding to your own alt accounts, with planned responses/conversations.
Judging by your insults, it appears that it isn’t me who doesn’t want to have a proper debate. I’ve responded to everything you commented on in a respectful and intelligent manner, I only ask that you show me the same courtesy.
Lazy-poor-abuse- what other words do you have to describe the so called poor people who are lazy and spank there kids because they don't want to deal with a different approach?! As you sit there do you honesty think that people that spank there kids are more times poor and lazy?
You didn't answer any thing I ask. Do you honesty feel that spanking is more in poor homes? And that spanking your child is because the parents are lazy?
Apparently I am slow! So slow I still do not see a response to what I ask.. I see you allot on here and your pretty dam rude. You have no respect for anyone. Must be a way to get people to pay attention to you. And that brings is back to spanking, did you get allot as a kid?? With your mouth and rudeness I could see why.. And if you didn't then You Should Have Been Beat with a belt!
1. The answer to your question, was the response that was questioned.
Which is what I was implying, but you are too slow to catch on to that.
2. Yes, I am very rude at first, but It's just a test to see whether you can keep a level head under pressure. If you are easily perturbed, then you aren't worth taking seriously.
3. My parents attempted to spank me many times, but I was a fast and slippery little kid, I would just run until they got tired. By the time I was 10 I was strong enough to yank the belt out of their hands, and then I'd dodge around and strike them with it.
"Respect YOUR authority? No! Respect MY authority! D:<"
So spankings didn't do anything, but give me another fun challenge, yousee.
I do think spanking is abuse because look at it this way: in the United States, you will be charged with assault if you hit an adult on the street, even if it's someone you know. However, if it's a child and it's your child, you can hit it any time it does something you don't like. What kind of sense does that make?
My second point is related to the definition of child abuse: physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.
Maltreatment is defined as cruel or violent treatment of a person or animal. I would call hitting your child violent.
