THW ban the physical punishment of children by

parents
The key clashes in the debate:

1. If violence is considered illegal in society when it takes place between adults, can it be
considered rational when used on children?

Proposition:
• Side proposition made it very clear that violence is any form is irrational.

• They analysed their claim by stating that in the context of the debate, a parent might use
physical violence as a substitute for an explanation or a lecture.

• They proved that violence damages a child mentally and physically by making a completely
valid argument about fear, humiliation, and proper bruises inflicted on the child’s body.

Opposition:
Side opposition stated that violence is rational if:

A. The intent is not malicious

B. It is used to discipline the child

• They made these two claims, but never proved, that even in the worst case scenario, where a
child is violently abused, smacking a child is much more beneficial and useful to discipline him/
her….than a calm explanation.

• Side proposition won this clash in my opinion, as they characterised smacking a child as an act
which is irrational and wrong due to its violent nature. Side opposition tried to say that violence
is justified in certain cases, but they could not prove this keeping in mind the relationship
between a child and a parent.

• Prop. Stated that they don’t want the parent to be in the position of losing self-control in the first
place, and hence the ban is necessary.

2. We allow parents to decide things of great impact like - education and which medical
treatment to take. If parents are allowed that autonomy, they should be allowed autonomy
in the case of physically punishing their child as well.

Side Propostion:
• They stated that choices such as where the child should receive education from are rational and
lead to the betterment of the child

• They explained that beating you child as a form of punishment just because you have control
over everything else they do, is irrational, and does not lead to the betterment of the child at all.

Side Opposition;
• To win this clash, and the whole debate as a matter of fact, side Opp. Had to prove that beating
a child to discipline them is rational, and leads to the betterment of the child, making it a choice
a parent should make on his or her own.

• Since side opposition could not do so, side proposition won this clash

3. Telling a child off is just as emotionally stressful as a beating

Side prop:
• They completely disagree with this statement.

• They felt that an explanation allows one to verbalise their thoughts and emotions, whereas a
beating leaves the child instilled with fear and humiliation.

Side opp. Tried to counter this by saying that the parent can easily explain something to their
child after or before a beating, but side prop. Made it very clear that many parents will use
physical violence as a substitute for an explanation. The child will also be in no state to hear the
parent or understand them after a beating, as the child is instilled with fear and pain.

Side proposition won this clash as well, as they made it very clear that if you weigh an explanation
and a beating together, the beating is much worse. They did so by providing short term and long
term effects of physical violence (Trauma, fear, bruises,). In the end, they just had to prove which
was worse

Overall, This debate for both sides was as follows:

Side proposition:
• All they had to prove was, that in all cases, violence is wrong and irrational, and ultimately
damages the child much more than it helps in disciplining him/her.

•
• They easily did so by talking about how

1. It instills fear in the child

2. Makes the child lose faith in the parent

3. It can lead to major physical harm

4. Desensitises violence as whole, and paints the actions of gangs and bullies in a normal light.

• In the end they could prove that even in the most gentle of situations, there is absolutely no
benefit received by the child from a physical beating, as it only damages them in a critical
fashion. Hence, they could justify the ban

Side opposition
• I felt that side opposition had to prove just one statement, but it was a very hard thing to do
that.

• All side opposition had to prove was that even in the worst of situations concerning physical
violence, the child receives some sort of benefit, in terms of becoming more disciplined.

• Side opposition couldn’t really prove how a physical beatdown has a positive impact on the
child in any way. I felt that they just countered the policy made by side proposition (Arguments
about the strain on social service, and the characterisation of shouting as a fear inducing
action), and didn’t use this counterattack to further their argument about why the ban is not
necessary.

• I also felt that their argument about violence being justified in certain circumstances was a
good one, but they backed it up with examples about how the police deals with criminals,
instead of the relationship between a child and a parent.

In the end, side proposition could prove that their ban was necessary by characterising physical
punishment as irrational and unnecessary. They could also prove that the harms of physical
violence are much more than any of the benefits side opposition vaguely mentioned. That is why I
feel side proposition won this debate.