Help a fellow member with a debate!

[Extreme-Speed]

Okay, here's the rub: in E.L.A class in my school, we hold debates every day five. Two teams of two people each debate a certain subject against each other, one team acts as the government (wants the bill to succeed) and the other acts as the opposition (wants the bill to fail). The rest of the class sits around and grades the two teams on how well they think they debated, and in turn, they are graded by the teacher for how well they graded the debaters. Apparently, this all conforms with the provincial standards for school debates.

Anyways, this time, my class suggested and chose an interesting topic for debate: "Should the government allow paddling (hitting people with wooden batons) as a punishment in schools?" and it was a good enough topic that I thought I'd ask you all what you thought of the subject. So, without further ado:

Do you think that paddling should be an allowed punishment in schools?

Discuss.

hahaha, I voted for "do your own homework". how smartly intellegent! CLEVER CLEVER

[Lig]

Well this is a though one. I can see both sides of the argument. On one side you have some kids who quite frankly probably won't get the idea of something without a bit of incentive in that form. But on the other hand it can be a problem if the teacher goes overboard with it. So two good point. But frankly I think it might be a good idea with some students that have been physically aggressive and just haven't seemed to get the idea.

[Ibun]

Only if I'm allowed to do it.

[Arloest]

I would say going neg on this is the best way to go.

Points:

1. Any deterrence of bad behavior as a result of paddling would likely be overturned by spite and ill feelings towards the teacher.

Getting paddled by your teacher will obviously not make you like them. It may set some kids straight, but you can by no means guarantee that no kids will simply continue to be bad, slack off, or get worse, as a means of getting some sort of "revenge". It is important to remember that kids minds are underdeveloped, and such rash tactics wouldn't be below them. Basically, paddling can just lead to worse things.

2. The use of paddling as punishment may encourage kids to use physical violence.

Teachers are very influential to children at a young age. If a teacher uses paddling to set a kid straight, then she is basically saying to them that physical aggression is an acceptable way to set someone straight. This can lead to increased schoolyard/otherwise violence, which obviously doesn't deter bad behavior.

3. Paddling can inflict physical damage.

Though not likely, paddling CAN cause serious physical trauma. Obviously the purpose of it is to induce pain, but not to the degree of serious injury. But the student in question may have some type of condition in which paddling CAN be damaging. It is absolutely irresponsible for a school to risk that kind of result, and can very well lead to lawsuits by parents. So, as an extension of this argument, paddling can potentially cost the school unnecessary legal fees that could have otherwise been spent on needed school supplies.

You can probably think of more than that, but here are some counter arguments to stuff you'd probably get back from those affirming.

1. Physical punishment speaks louder than verbal scorn.

Basically, they would argue that kids would be a lot more fearful of the humiliation and pain of paddling. Here I would refer again to the fact that this humiliation in itself, especially if done on a mass scale, can lead to dissent among students. Refer to point 1. You cannot possibly guarantee that it will absolutely deter bad behavior. The affirmative has the burden of proving that this is the best option, neg simply has to say its not.

2. School violence has increased in recent years, where paddling is being less and less used.

First of all, I'd ask for proof of this. And even if it is true, it's a pretty useless argument. You can't possibly prove that increased violence is a direct result of less paddling. Cultural changes might be accounted for - though I loathe this, cite that new television programs and violent video games could just as easily, and probably easier, could be the problem. Basically, this doesn't prove anything with any guarantee.

3. Paddling would establish the teacher as someone not to be messed around with, and therefore respect would be gained.

This is similar to counter attack 1. Pretty much use the same logic to counter act this. Something like this simply can't be guaranteed.


That's all I got but I'm pretty sure that's enough from me.

[Ibun]

To add a point to the con side, I think parents should be the ones to discipline their kids. Its' their responsibility to raise them right, not the school's. The school system is in place to teach kids subjects, not life lessons.

Really part of the reason kids are so out of control is because parents don't show any balls.

[Arloest]

Yes, and that's a good point too. Using paddling pretty much emphasizes unnecessary government control.

[Ibun]

Really I don't think paddling is good for anyone to do; but that's just my personal belief. Just if anyone were to do it, I'd rather it be parents.

[Sage]

If I were a parent I wouldn't want my kid getting beaten with a stick -and- get bullied (it would probably happen).

y'know?

That's just me.

(On a side note, I hate debating.)

[Doc Sigma]

Before you decide pro or con, please answer this. This is a question, not an argument for or against.

If paddling is okay but it isn't enough of a deterrent, then what? Should the teacher be allowed to stab the kid with a needle, or hold his hand under a flame, or break his arm? Why not? You're allowing one form of physical abuse which can cause grave injury; why not allow others? Why would paddling be okay but other forms of abuse not be okay?

[nickspoon]

Before you decide pro or con, please answer this. This is a question, not an argument for or against.

If paddling is okay but it isn't enough of a deterrent, then what? Should the teacher be allowed to stab the kid with a needle, or hold his hand under a flame, or break his arm? Why not? You're allowing one form of physical abuse which can cause grave injury; why not allow others? Why would paddling be okay but other forms of abuse not be okay?

I disapprove of paddling anybody, but the point of paddling is that it does not cause grave injury. It can, but this is unlikely; whereas stabbing, burning and breaking the arms of children is highly likely to gravely and even permanently harm them.

[Bocaj Claw]

Leading behaviorist psychologists that I can't rightly remember argue that punishment isn't a effective form of behavior control. Something about it only tells them not to do one thing which leaves about 359 degrees of other stuff they could do. Leading behaviorist psychologists are not Spock.

[Doc Sigma]

I disapprove of paddling anybody, but the point of paddling is that it does not cause grave injury. It can, but this is unlikely; whereas stabbing, burning and breaking the arms of children is highly likely to gravely and even permanently harm them.

Bingo!

Now! The next step depends on whether you're pro or con. If pro, you can leave the argument at that and see how con refutes it. If con, you can do research to look for evidence that paddling often does cause physical harm.

Or you can just pursue another line of thought.

The exercise here was to see how someone from either side would react to such an over-the-top argument. When debating, you need to, for lack of a better term, prepare for the unexpected.

Leading behaviorist psychologists that I can't rightly remember argue that punishment isn't a effective form of behavior control. Something about it only tells them not to do one thing which leaves about 359 degrees of other stuff they could do. Leading behaviorist psychologists are not Spock.

This is good, this is very good, however to actually use this in a debate you'd NEED evidence. Find out the names of these psychologists, find their published works, etc.

[Dr. Dos]

All of the above except the first one.

[Bocaj Claw]

Leading behaviorist psychologists that I can't rightly remember argue that punishment isn't a effective form of behavior control. Something about it only tells them not to do one thing which leaves about 359 degrees of other stuff they could do. Leading behaviorist psychologists are not Spock.

This is good, this is very good, however to actually use this in a debate you'd NEED evidence. Find out the names of these psychologists, find their published works, etc.

Fair enough. If I was in a actual debate situation I probably would have brought said evidence. Or logical fallacies. Depending on how soon before the debate I had started preparing.

[gforce422]

I believe the issue of "to paddle or not to paddle" is somewhat dependent on the situation. For some people, a verbal reprimand will speak louder than a physical action. The tricky part is finding out which method of discipline is the most effective, which, in a school setting, can sometimes be assessed by the principal or teacher who sees how the child behaves under certain circumstances. Like starting with a verbal reprimand, and seeing if the undesirable behavior subsides. If the child continues to misbehave, a stronger course of action might be necessary, such as paddling. But even if one has to resort to paddling, they must be level headed about it, and know what would constitute too much paddling for the child who is being reprimanded.

Just my two cents.