Document Sample
introduction_to_debating Powered By Docstoc
 to Debating
      This guide to debating (as well as public speaking) has been compiled
for the purpose of facilitating the conducting of the regional debate
workshops, organized by the Mahidol University International College (MUIC)
Debate Club, with coordination from the Delegation of the European Union
to Thailand, Cambodia and Laos.

      While this guide has been largely compiled by the MUIC Debate Club,
most of its contents have been derived from similar guides compiled by
other, experienced, debating societies in the world, in this case being the
Monash Association of Debaters Member Training Handbook and the
Australia-Asia Debate Guide (second edition). The aforementioned guides
have proven to be a great guide for new debaters (as well as public
speakers), and the way in which these guides have been constructed could
have been done better, which is why much of the content in the coming
pages will have been taken directly from the aforementioned guides.

      We very much hope that this guide will be useful to you, not just for
debating, but outside of it as well, as the ability to communicate in English
with confidence, efficiency and reason cannot be underestimated in
today’s globalized world.
Introduction to Public Speaking

By Victor Finkel

A fear of public speaking is one of the greatest challenges many people
face in being successful in education, employment and social settings.
Conversely, confident public speakers often find it easier to have their talent
recognized in education, at work and in all manner of contexts.
The good news is that public speaking is a skill that can be worked on and
improved, just like any other. This chapter aims to highlight a couple of
simple things that can help you in your public speaking.

1) Have a message
The easiest way to be more confident in public speaking is to know what
you want to talk about. Whether speaking on a set topic or on something
that you have chosen, try and come up with a single sentence that
describes your main contention. Using a sentence like this makes it easier for
the audience to understand what you will be talking about, and will make it
much easier for you to make sure that your speech does what you want it

2) Structure your speech
A clear structure for a speech makes it much easier for an audience to
follow. In debate we like to talk about the “Rule of 3’s”. One application of
the rule of three is to try and have three points in a speech. Another is to
say everything 3 times. First, introduce the points that you are going to
make. Secondly, make each point in turn. Thirdly, summarize the points that
you have made. In this way people will clearly remember the main
messages of what you have to say.

Signposting is another trick that makes it easier for your audience to follow
where one point ends and the next begins. It is literally telling your audience
“My next argument is” or “Moving to the next point”
3) Relax
It’s important to remember to relax! Have a positive mindset – in nearly all
the public speaking that you will ever do, the people watching will want
you to succeed. Don’t feel the need to apologize if you make a mistake. It’s
natural to make mistakes, and everyone does. Just refocus on your speech
and move on!

4) Add some variety
Aim for a little variety in the way that you speak. In some ways learning to
speak in public can be just like acting. Try to think what the appropriate
emotion is before you make a point. For example, if talking about the horrors
of war, I should try to sound outraged, or maybe even distressed. If talking
about the potential for renewable energy to save the world, I should try to
sound excited. And if making complex points about the mechanics of
financial regulation, I probably shouldn’t sound too emotional at all!

Another useful way to add variety is to have a short pause between points.
This breaks up the rhythm of the speech and gives audience members a
chance to catch up - meaning they are fresh and ready for your next point.
The final thing to remember is that you already possess the speaking skills
you need. In the right context, you can be funny, clever, persuasive and
heartfelt. Try and remember what it feels like when you speak like that, and
apply it to your public speaking.

5) Practice!
The best way to develop your public speaking skills is to practice! There are
many great ways to practice. Take the opportunity to speak whenever it
presents itself. Other great ways to practice by yourself include:

-writing short speeches and reading them aloud
-reducing the written speech to keywords, and then speaking from that
-reading opinion articles out loud
-practicing speaking into a mirror
Constructing Arguments
By Tim Sonnreich

First and foremost, you need to know the difference between an argument
and an assertion. In simple terms an assertion is something that is stated as
true, without enough analysis to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe
that the statement is likely to be true. It’s a statement of fact, without proof
of its validity. To avoid using assertions, you need to understand the
anatomy of an argument.

1. The IDEA

The idea is simply the point you are trying to make. It’s just a heading or a
title – it might be true, it might not, but that’s something for you to prove
later. So for example, in the debate “That we should ban smoking in pubs
and clubs”, the first speaker might have as the IDEA for one argument “that
banning smoking will improve the profits of the businesses involved”. Now
that may be true, but it hasn’t been proved yet, it’s just an IDEA. IDEA’s are
often the things you mention when you are signposting your arguments.

      For example: “I will be talking about the economic reasons why we
      should ban smoking in pubs and clubs. My first argument is that it will
      improve the profits of the businesses involved.” (IDEA)

Once you have an IDEA, the next step is to provide the analysis to prove it.
Basically this is where you show logically or analytically that the IDEA is likely
to be true (it’s hard to really “prove” things in debates, but you can show it’s
highly likely to be true you can do this by demonstrating that logically the
IDEA is true when taken in the context of the topic, or you can offer a series
of reasons to support it. Using the previous example of banning smoking, a
speaker might say “banning smoking will actually generate more profits for
businesses because it will attract more customers. At present many potential
customers are put off going out to pubs and clubs, or cut short their visits
because they are put off by cigarette smoke, which they know is dangerous
to them”. You could explain this in more detail but I think you get the point.
However, although this ANALYSIS is partially persuasive on its own as a
justification for the IDEA, it would be stronger if it had some evidence. This
brings us to the last step.
The third step, EVIDENCE, is usually the easiest. This is the stage where you
provide something like a statistic, a survey, a case study or an analogy to
give greater credibility to your IDEA and ANALYSIS. Partly because it’s the
easiest to do, it’s also the least important link in the chain of an argument,
but it’s a good thing to have. So to finish our example-argument one piece
of evidence might be a survey conducted by ASH (Action on Smoking and
Health) that demonstrates how a significant number of people would spend
more time in smoke-free pubs and clubs.

Rebuttal - Deconstructing Arguments

Now that you know what a good argument is, you can effectively destroy it.
The argument chain is at weakest at link three -EVIDENCE- since it’s always
easy to dispute the evidence presented by your opposition. For example
you could criticize the study conducted by ASH - since it is an openly anti-
tobacco organization, it would probably be biased in the way it conducted
the survey. But attacking the argument here is a poor strategy. This is
because the opposition can repair the chain by providing more evidence
(which you attack, then they gives more and it becomes a stalemate) or
argue over whether ASH is a good source of evidence.

Moving up…
Attacking the argument a little higher, at the ANALYSIS, is more difficult but
more effective than simply attacking the evidence level. If you can
demonstrate that the ANALYSIS is illogical or based on assumptions that are
not true (or unlikely to be true) then you heavily damage the credibility of
the whole argument. This is the most common sort of rebuttal used by
experienced speakers. However, it is usually not a fatal blow. For example:
you might say that smoking is not really a reason why people choose not to
attend pubs and clubs, since less than a quarter of the Australian
population smoke, but nightclubs and pubs are full of non-smokers every
weekend. Unfortunately for you, a clever opposition can rebuild their
ANALYSIS by giving other reasons, or explaining the logical links in a different
way, and that weakens your rebuttal.
The Top of the Chain…

So finally we get to the top of the chain, the IDEA. This is usually very difficult
to attack since often they are reasonable ideas, it’s just that your team has
to argue that they are not true in the context of the debate. But sometimes
you can attack the idea, and if you can do it effectively, it’s a fatal blow to
that argument.

So in our example, you can attack the idea that banning smoking in pubs
will be good for business by arguing that that firstly you don’t think that it’s
true (and attack the analysis), but even if it is, “it’s not the most important
issue in this debate. Smoking is a legal activity, consenting adults have the
right to do lots of things that are harmful to them (link drinking the alcohol
served in pubs and clubs) and the government can’t ban it simply because
it might make more money. People’s liberties are more important that a
night club owner’s profits”.

Now that you know the parts that make up an argument and the ways
you can attack them, you can start to use these techniques as you
go through your rebuttal. Not only do you have the strong framework
of thematic rebuttal to work within, you have more specific ways to
attack your opponent’s arguments!

Having read about how generally approach a speech as well as
constructing (and destroying!) an argument, the following pages will be
show you two sample debates, with both the pros and the cons listed for
you to look at. Try applying some of the techniques which you have learned
in the last couple of pages!
Background and Context of Debate:

This debate is the topic of the March 2009 Global Debates competition put on by The People Speak,

an Initiative of the United Nations Foundation. There are many questions involved in this public

debate. Are industrialized nations to blame for emitting massive quantities of green house gases into

the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? Does it matter that they were unaware of the

consequences of their emissions and global warming throughout most of the industrial revolution?

Does this make them less culpable and thus less obligated to resolve the crisis? Can global warming

be effectively combated if developing nations are considered "less" responsible for fighting it? Should

large developing countries such as China and India be held to a lower standard than larger

developed nations? What would this mean for fighting global warming? Should all nations be

expected to contribute as much as they are able to contribute, which would mean that some

developing countries would contribute less but not necessarily because they are less obligated?

Should the predecessor of the Kyoto Protocol be based on the conclusion of this debate - holding all

nations to the same standard or holding developed and developing nations to different standards?

What is most fair? What is best for planet Earth? Overall, should developed countries be more

obligated to combat global warming?
Differentiated responsibilities: Do states have a "common but
differentiated responsibility"?

Pro                                             Con

  Developed/developing have common                "Obligations"/"equality" distract from

  but differentiated responsibilities The         solving climate change The idea that

  Rio Declaration from The United Nations         some countries are more responsible than

  Conference on Environment and                   others to cut emissions and fight global

  Development states - "In view of the            warming misses the point - global warming

  different contributions to global               is a collective, global problem that can only

  environmental degradation, States have          be successfully combated if every country

  common but differentiated responsibilities.     puts its wits and resources fully behind

  The developed countries acknowledge the         resolving the crisis. Developed and
  responsibility that they bear in the            developing countries are equally responsible

  international pursuit of sustainable            to resolve the crisis. Developing nations

  development in view of the pressures their      should swallow their legitimate frustrations

  societies place on the global environment       with developed nations for causing global

  and of the technologies and financial           warming, and focus their attention on
  resources they command."[1]                     helping form a collective solution.

  Developed emit more per capita; more            Seeking equality of emissions fails to

  obligated to cut rate Emissions per capita      cut overall emissions. If developed

  are much higher in developed countries          nations are forced to cut emissions and

  (20t per capita in the US) compared to          developing nations allowed to increase per
  developing ones (less than 4t per capita).      capita emissions - with both meeting in the

  This means that individuals in developed        middle - the ultimate result is that

  nations are more responsible for causing        developing-country-increases cancel out

  global warming, more responsible for            developed-country-reductions. Overall

  continuing global warming, and so more          emissions would be kept constant and not

  obligated to cut emissions and solve the        reduced. In fact, because developing

  problem. These individuals must, therefore,     nations have larger populations, meeting in

  pressure their governments to take greater      the middle on per capita emissions could
  action on their behalf.                         result in even higher overall emissions.

                                                  Contraction and Convergence, while it might
  Contraction/Convergence equalizes               be "fair", would not help solve the principal
  per capita emissions, burdens wealthy           issue involved - global warming.
  Contraction and Convergence is a good

  proposal for addressing the imbalance           Equality of per capita emissions does
  between per capital emissions around the         not work when states specialize. In

  world. It holds developed countries              modern international capitalism and free

  responsible for cutting their per capita         trade, states specialize in areas in which

  emissions (contraction) and meeting              they have a comparative advantage. This

  developing countries in the middle               may mean that some states specialize in

  (convergence). Developing countries are          manufacturing and some in services,

  fairly allowed to continue to develop and        industries with far different emissions.

  increase per capita emissions to a level         Attempting to hold these specializing states

  equal to developed countries "in the             to the same per capita emissions levels,

  middle". The obligation, in this case, falls     therefore, does not make sense. It would

  more heavily on developed nations to             require that all states have the same share
  reduce their emissions.                          of all industries, which is neither
                                                   economically or environmentally desirable.

Blame: Are developed states more to blame for climate change, so
more obligated?

Pro                                              Con

  Developed countries caused global                Developed states did not initially know

  warming, they must fix it Chinese                they were causing warming. Developed

  Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu -          nations did not always know that they were

  "It must be pointed out that climate change      causing global warming by burning fossil
  has been caused by the long-term historic        fuels and emitting greenhouse gases into

  emissions of Developed Countries and their       the atmosphere. This knowledge only began

  high per-capita emissions...Developed            to form in the 1980s and 1990s, over a

  countries bear an unshirkable                    century after the industrial revolution had
  responsibility."[2]                              begun. It is inappropriate, therefore, to hold

                                                   developed nations morally accountable for
  Developed countries hypocritically               starting the industrial revolution and
  reprimand developing states. It is               causing global warming; they knew not
  hypocritical for developed countries to          what they were doing. And, once developed
  complain at developing countries for             economies were dependent on fossil fuels, it
  polluting more heavily at present, when          was not possible for them to immediately
  this is exactly what developed countries did     act on their knowledge and stop using fossil
  long ago to achieve their great wealth. This     fuels - particularly when not everyone
  overall sentiment is reflected in a              accepted the science behind global
  statement in 2007 by Luiz Inácio Lula da
  Silva - "The wealthy countries are very           warming. It is, therefore, wrongheaded to

  smart, approving protocols, holding big           "blame" the developed world for global

  speeches on the need to avoid                     warming and saddle them with the

  deforestation, but they already deforested        "punishment" of a greater obligation to

  everything [in their own countries]."[3]          combating it.

  Furthermore, it should be noted that it is

  only through this heavy industrialization         "Blame game" distracts from solving

  that developed countries are now in a             global climate change The idea that some

  position of wealth and know-how that offers       countries are more to blame than others for

  them the luxury of going "green".                 causing global climate change may be true,

                                                    but it distracts from the more important and

                                                    just cause, which is for the world to come
                                                    together to solve the problem.

Solution: Does greater obligation for developed nations help solve

Pro                                               Con

  Developed states emit more; their                 High emitters, not developed countries,

  steps have higher impact "UN: Rich                are most obligated. It doesn't matter

  Nations Must Lead Fight Against Global            whether a country is developing or

  Warming". eNews. November 27th 2007 -             developed. This is not the factor that

  "The [UN] report criticized Washington for        obligates a country to take up a "higher"

  not imposing nationwide mandatory cuts on         responsibility for combating global warming.

  industrial emissions. [...] Stating the fact      Rather, countries that emit the most -

  that the world's richest countries are also       whether developed or developing -

  the biggest carbon emitters, the report said      contribute more to global warming now and

  the US has to take the lead by cutting            so have a greater obligation to combat

  emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 in               global warming now. China and India are

  addition to contributing to a new 86-billion-     obvious example, and they should not be

  dollar annual global fund to help poor            held to lower standards.

  countries adapt to climate change. [...] The

  report said the 19 million inhabitants in         Large developing states have warming-

  New York state have a higher carbon               obligation to cut population Developing

  footprint than 766 million people living in       nations, particularly China and India, are

  50 least developed countries." Therefore,         responsible for nearly catastrophic

  developed countries are more obligated to         population growth. This is one of the
  cut emissions because such cuts will have        greatest risks to global warming, as

  such a higher bang for buck in solving           developing nations industrialize and the
  climate change.                                  means to pollute disseminate rapidly and

                                                   broadly across massive populations. In this

                                                   regard, developing nations have, at least,

                                                   an equal responsibility to cut their emissions

                                                   because of their potential to emit

                                                   catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases
                                                   into the atmosphere.

Leadership: Do developed states have a greater obligation to use
their leadership?

Pro                                              Con

  US is responsible to lead in fighting            Largest states are responsible to lead

  global warming Rajendra Pachauri, chair          on climate change. US, Japan, China,

  of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on             Germany, India, and Brazil are among the

  Climate Change, IPCC. - "It is essential for     largest and most powerful countries in the

  the U.S. to take action. The rest of the         world. This list, and a larger list of G20

  world looks to the U.S. for leadership [but]     states, includes both developed and

  the perception round the world is that the       developing nations. China, India, and Brazil
  U.S. has not been very active in this area.      are the most notable large developing

  [... And, this would] undoubtedly                nations in the G20. Due to their size,

  reestablish confidence in U.S. leadership on     economic power, and emissions (now and in
  critical global issues."                         the future), they share an equal

                                                   responsibility to fight global warming. For
  Developed states are responsible set             the same reason, they share an equal
  model of "green" economies.                      responsibility with developed nations to
  Developing countries are not capable, with       apply their leadership role in their
  their limited resources and know-how to          respective regions to lead the fight against
  develop, on their own, the best "green"          climate change. If they do not, surrounding
  model for their societies. Developed             countries - fearing a loss of competitiveness
  countries have a responsibility to act first     in particular - will not take strong actions to
  and set an example that developing               combat global climate change. Therefore, it
  countries can follow.                            is important that all of the most powerful
                                                   nations in the world - developed or
  Developing states will not go "green"
                                                   developing - lead their regions in the fight
  before developed competitors China and
                                                   on global climate change.
  India are very concerned with their

  development and their capacity to compete

  with the developed world. With significantly

  greater poverty and instability, they have

  far less flexibility to tamper with their

  competitiveness with developed nations on

  the global economic stage. They will only

  go "green" if the developed world goes

  green first, assuring them that their

  competitiveness will not be jeopardized. In

  a position of greater economic flexibility,

  developed countries must take the first

  step. Only then will developing nations

Resources: Are developed states more obligated with more

Pro                                              Con

  Developed states have more available             Developed states are doing everything

  money to fight climate change                    they can on climate change Developed

  Developed states obviously have more             countries typically are much more energy

  wealth to employ in combating global             efficient than developing countries. This is

  warming. These more able countries have a        an example of how they are already taking

  responsibility to employ their available         major steps to combat global warming;

  financial resources toward fighting global       steps which developing countries are not

  warming. Developing countries also have          taking. They have no further obligation

  this obligation to commit as much as they        beyond these steps.

  can, but because they have far fewer

  available resources, their obligation and        Large developing nations are wealthy

  commitment will simply be smaller.               enough to lead on climate change.

  Developed nations are uniquely obligated to      China, India, and Brazil are all part of the
  employ these greater available resources in     G20, as mentioned in the above section.
  the fight on global climate change.             This means they are among the twenty

                                                  wealthiest nations in the world. As a result,
  Developing states live in subsistence,          it is wrong to assume that they do not have
  lower "green" obligation Developing             enough money to spare in the fight on
  countries employ almost all of their            climate change. They have plenty of
  resources on subsistence living, while          resources, through a broad tax base, to
  developed countries spend much of their         make major state investments in "green"
  resources on luxury and excesses. When          technologies. They are just as obligated as
  this is the case, developing nations cannot     developed states to commit these
  be expected to contribute equally to            significant, available resources.
  fighting global climate change.

                                                  If poor are most effected, they should
  Developed are responsible to commit             be willing to invest. Poor states are
  "green" technologies Developed states           indeed disproportionately effected by global
  have more applicable technologies and           warming. Investing available resources in
  know-how for the fight on global warming.       combating global warming is, therefore, an
  They are uniquely responsible to commit         imperative of developing nations. It goes
  these resources toward the fight on global      hand-in-hand with - instead of taking away
  warming. They are also responsible to           from (as argued by the affirmative side) -
  transfer them to developing countries,          efforts to combat poverty, disease, and
  which cannot effectively fight global           social disruption.
  warming without these technologies first.

                                                  Greater resources of developed

                                                  countries does not obligate them.

                                                  Developed countries do not have a greater

                                                  obligation to combat global warming as a

                                                  result of them having more resources. It

                                                  would be generous of them to contribute
                                                  more. But, it is not a greater obligation.

Economics: What are the economic pros and cons of this motion?

Pro                                             Con

  Developing nations need room to                 States should contribute equally to

  develop without emission restrictions.          combating climate change. It is true that

  Developing nations need room to develop         developed states will contribute more
  industry and grow, just like developed           resources and money on absolute terms,

  nations were allowed to do in their              simply because their wealth is greater. But,

  industrial development. Heavy emissions          they have no obligation to contribute more

  regulations constrain such growth and are        money and resources as a percentage of
  unfair as such.                                  GDP. This should be roughly equal across all
  Going "green" in developed nations is

  not burden, but opportunity. While it            Developing states want lower

  may be the case that developed countries         standards for economic advantage Pete

  are "obligated" to take the lead on global       Du Pont. "Bali Who?". Wall Street Journal.

  warming, this should not be considered a         December 19, 2007 - "Under cover of

  "burden". Increasing energy efficiency and       fighting global warming, developing

  establishing technical and capital               countries try to slow America's economy.

  dominance in the emerging global green           [...] Developing nations don't want to be

  industry is a potentially game changing          limited in any way, and they do want to

  opportunity for developed nations.               slow down the economic growth of

  Developed nations should, in this manner,        developed nations so they can gain

  rejoice in any perspective taken by              economically."

  developing countries such as China and

  India that the developed world is somehow        Developed nations create demand that

  "burdened" by taking the lead in this new        propels developing states. It is not

  massive "green" industry. It would give          economically beneficial for the world to stick

  them a head start in establishing their          developed nations with the obligation to use

  economic dominance in the industry. At a         more of their resources to combat global

  minimum, developed nations should not be         warming. The reason is that the wealth in

  concerned about any economic costs               developed countries is precisely what runs

  associated with their "higher obligation" to     the global economy and creates demand for

  combat global warming; it's a good               the work performed by developing nations.

  investment in a promising industry.

Irony: Are developed states more obligated because poorer states
are harmed most?

Pro                                              Con

  Developed must protect developing                Developed did not plan for emissions to

  from higher costs of warming The                 harm poor most. Developed nations were
  authors of a 2006 UN report warned that          not even aware of the consequences of their

  rich countries - especially the wealthy          emissions through most of the industrial

  Organization of Economic Cooperation and         revolution. Therefore, they were certainly

  Development (OECD) nations - are driving         not aware that the consequences would

  an ecological crisis that will hit the poor      disproportionately fall on poor developing

  hardest. These are nations living near the       nations. Developed nations are not,

  equator and in low-lying coastal areas most      therefore, responsible or culpable for these

  vulnerable to rising seas. This global           disproportionate consequences, so they

  warming "irony" creates a greater                should not be disproportionately obligated

  obligation on the part of developed              to fight global climate change on this point.

  countries to respond, and protect

  developing countries from the costs of their

  blind industrialization, mass consumption,
  and wealth-accumulation.

Developing growth: Will developing world growth negate
developed state cuts?

Pro                                              Con

  Even with lower obligation, developing           Developing country exemptions negate

  states are going "green" Both India and          developed country leadership Kyoto

  China are already establishing very strict       Protocol exempted developing countries

  emissions standards, largely because they        such as China from meeting certain key

  are so vulnerable to the local effects of        emissions standards. The problem is that

  their large emissions. Reducing smog in          the new emissions from China would offset

  their own cities is enough of an incentive       all emissions cuts from developed nations.

  for them to make such emissions                  As a result, the world, under Kyoto Protocol,

  reductions. Therefore, even with a lower         would/will emit roughly the same amount

  "obligation" for developing nations, they        and make little progress to cutting

  are still taking strong actions to combat        emissions overall. This is unacceptable.
  climate change.                                  Developed countries cannot be expected to

                                                   lead on climate change under such
  Developing world growth will not                 circumstances. They are forced into a
  negate developed emissions cuts Kevin            situation in which they must ask, "what's
  A Baumert and Nancy Kete. "Will                  the point?", for which there is no reply.
  Developing Countries' Carbon Emissions

  Swamp Global Emissions Reduction
  Efforts". World Resource Institute. 2002 -

  "One of the concerns regarding the Kyoto

  Protocol has been that it exempts

  developing nations from targets to reduce

  greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly,

  many people worry that developing country

  emissions will skyrocket as they develop

  economically, effectively swamping the

  expensive efforts of developed countries

  required to make large investments in

  lowering their emissions. However,
  evidence has shown that this is not likely."

China/India: Should China and India be held to lower emissions

Pro                                              Con

  China is exceeding                              China is worst contributor to

  expectations/obligations to lower its            climate change; has equal

  emissions As of 2008, China's per capita         obligations In 2006, China's CO2

  emissions of CO2 were still one-quarter          emissions surpassed those of the US
  that of the US. Though China continues to        by 8%, according to the Netherlands

  build emissions-intensive coal-fired power       Environmental Assessment Agency,

  plants, its "rate of development of              making it the largest contributor to

  renewable energy is even faster". Within         global warming. This means that, in

  reason, it is doing a good job of combating      the era of knowledge regarding the
  global climate change.                           effects of greenhouse emissions on

      Kevin A Baumert and Nancy Kete. "Will        global warming, China has at least an

      Developing Countries' Carbon                 equal responsibility as developed

      Emissions Swamp Global Emissions             nations to cut emissions.

      Reduction Efforts". World Resource
                                                  China is basically "developed", with
      Institute. 2002 - One of the concerns
                                                   higher "obligation". While many
      regarding the Kyoto Protocol has been
                                                   presume that China is a "developing"
      that it exempts developing nations from
                                                   country, many others, particularly in
      targets to reduce greenhouse gas
                                                   the much poorer parts of the Third
emissions. Accordingly, many people          World in South East Asia, consider

worry that developing country                China to be in the "developed"

emissions will skyrocket as they             category. China was, after, the third

develop economically, effectively            largest economy in the world at the

swamping the expensive efforts of            beginning of 2009. As a "developed"

developed countries required to make         nation, China would certainly have a

large investments in lowering their          greater obligation to fight global

emissions. However, evidence has             warming. Emissions exemptions would

shown that this is not likely. [...]         violate this obligation.

developing countries are already taking

substantial actions to reduce emissions     China and India emissions will

growth, even in the absence of               increase over time; cannot be

international commitments (Biagini           exempted. India and China are two of

2000). [...] China's actions are nothing     the worst polluters on the face of the

short of remarkable. The world's most        earth. As they industrialize, their

populous country reduced its                 contributions to global warming will

emissions, in absolute terms, 19             become astounding and far exceed the

percent between 1997 and 2000. This          emissions from other countries.

is simply unprecedented, especially          Compared to 2005, China's total

considering that China's economy grew        emissions increased by 9% in 2006 (to

by 15 percent over the same period           6.2 billion tons of CO2), while

(EIA 1999). Although the exact causes        emissions in the US decreased by

of the emissions decline are not certain,    1.4% (to 5.8 billion), compared to the

China has been engaged in sweeping           previous year. China's increasing rate

energy policy reforms over the last two      of CO2 emissions is heading toward a

decades to promote energy efficiency         50-100% increase above the current

and conservation (2). Measures taken         world total for CO2 emissions, by 20

include the following: reductions in         years from 2008. The scientists warn

fossil fuel subsidies; research,             that if China continues to increase its

development and demonstration                GDP at a rate of at least 7% per year,

projects; a national information             it will by then be emitting as much

network with efficiency service and          CO2 per year as the whole world

training centers; tax reforms;               emitted in 2007, -- 8 gigatons per

equipment standards; and special loan        year. China has a unique obligation to

programs, among other initiatives.           cut this high and dangerous emissions

These measures represent emission            growth rate. Holding them to lower

savings equal to nearly the entire U.S.      standards with emissions exemptions

transportation sector, about 400 million     would exacerbate this already
 tons per year (Zhang 1999)."                 disastrous prospect.

 China/India can't bare same costs           China's emissions harm

  as developed states on warming              neighbors/world; exemptions are

  China is not able to take up the same       unfair. Japan has complained about

  responsibilities in fighting global         the dramatic local effects of China's

  warming, mainly because it would            pollution on Japans forests and people.

  entail much greater economic                Exempting China would condemn

  consequences for them. This is the          Japan to even greater consequences

  case for the entire developing world,       from Chinese pollution. In a world in

  which is more vulnerable to any             which the consequences of a single
  external financial burdens.                 state's pollution affect its neighbors

                                              and the entire world, exemptions are
 Developed states are exploiting              irresponsible and unfair.
  standards to constrain

  India/China. Many developed

  countries nefariously see emissions

  standards as a means to constrain

  China and India's rapid development

  and to minimize the effect of this new

  competition on their own economies.

  The world needs to be aware of this

  conflict of interests when interpreting

  the arguments coming from

  developed countries to hold China and
  India to equal standards.

China/India outsourcing: Are exemptions justified in context
of outsourcing?

Pro                                         Con

 Developed state demand drives               Emissions exemptions for

  emissions in developing states It           China/India will inflate

  is true that China is a manufacturing       outsourcing to them By holding

  behemoth, and emitting large                developed countries to a greater

  quantities of greenhouse gases as a         obligation to fight global warming and
 result. But, who is consuming the           by exempting China and India from

 majority of the goods made in the           certain emissions requirements,

 factories in China that is causing their    developed countries will be put at an

 huge carbon footprint? Developed            economic and job-market

 countries are the chief consumers and       disadvantage. It will be even more

 drivers of this manufacturing and           likely that jobs are outsourced to China

 emissions. They have, therefore, a          and India, leaving the middle class of

 certain responsibility for the              developed countries suffering.

 manufacturing and emissions that are

 occurring in China and India. This is      World's manufacturing is in China,

 where exemptions for parts of their         emissions must be cut there. It is

 emissions help compensate for the           true that much of the world's

 fact they they alone are not                manufacturing and emissions are

 responsible for this manufacturing and      occurring in China. But, this is not a

 emissions - the world is responsible.       cause for exempting these countries

                                             from the emissions standards present
Developed outsource                          in developed countries. This would

 manufacturing/emissions to                  effectively mean that the world and all

 developed. Developed countries              the nations that outsource to China get

 frequently outsource                        an exemption, so long as they are

 manufacturing/emissions to                  outsourcing to China, which would be

 developing countries. For this reason,      unfortunate on many levels. The world

 developed countries should not be           should not allow for such an emissions

 treated on equal terms, and                 loophole, and must act to fully

 developing countries should be given        constrain emissions in China without

 exemptions for the dirty outsourcing        exemptions.

 for foreign countries. China has

 complained, on this point, that it is

 "the place where the US effectively

 outsources much of its pollution." It

 has called for joint international

 responsibility for at least part of

 China's emissions, and has made

 public, in Jan 2008, 130 violations of

 Chinese environmental law committed

 by multinationals in China. Other

 developing countries have a similar

 problem, in which they are accused of
  polluting too much, when they are

  merely the manufacturing engine of

  developed countries that outsource to

Sectoral standards: Are global sectoral standards a bad/good

Pro                                         Con

 Sectoral emissions standards                Developing nations should be held

  constrain developing nations Fred           to global sectoral standards. These
  Pearce. "Rising nations face 'back          are standards set across a specific

  door' emissions limits". New Scientist.     industry, most importantly

  April 26, 2008: "Developing countries       manufacturing, for the purpose of

  are hostile to global standards, which      ensuring that similar factories around

  they see as a way of imposing targets       the world are held to the same

  by the back door on countries which         emissions standards. This is important

  have far lower emissions per head of        because measuring the total emissions

  population than most developed              of a nation does not provide much

  nations. 'India is opposed to all           useful information. What is more

  sectoral global standards,' said Malini     important is that the most polluting
  Mehra of India's Centre for Social          industries around the world are held to

  Markets at the Royal Society                the same standards. They are also
  meeting."                                   important because they prevent the

                                              shifting of production to countries with
 Sectoral emissions standards risk            lower standards for specific factories in
  causing protectionism Shyam                 an industry. On this point, Ian Rodgers
  Saran, special envoy for the Indian         - director of the trade association UK
  Prime Minister on climate change, said      steel - said that a European carbon
  in Mumbai in April, 2008, "There is a       limit alone "is not going to curb
  very real danger that in adopting           emissions. It will just move the
  sectoral standards among themselves,        emissions elsewhere."[5]
  the developed countries would use the
  competitiveness argument
Background and context
This debate shares something with Corporal Punishment (for Adults), namely
whether the infliction of physical pain can ever be justifiable; but the issue of
‘paddling’ or spanking for children is less about punishment in itself and
more about punishment as a means of education. How can young children
learn the difference between right and wrong? How can teachers establish
order in the classroom and enable a better environment for learning? Britain
is a major example in this debate, having allowed corporal punishment in
classrooms until 1986 when legislation brought it in line with the rest of
Europe. All industrialized countries now ban corporal punishment in schools
(not parental spanking) apart from the USA, Canada and one state in
Discipline: Can corporal punishment help discipline children?

Pro                                                 Con

  Corporal punishment is a good tool for              It is dubious that corporal punishment

  disciplining unruly children Walter                 helps discipline children. Even the power

  Williams. "Making a Case for Corporal               of physical punishment to teach a child the

  Punishment". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999:                   difference between right and wrong is

  "Regardless of what the experts preached,           dubious; a young child may learn that the

  the undeniable fact is the 'uncivilized'            adult is displeased, but not why. Spanking

  practice of whipping children produced              will cause a state of extreme distress and

  more civilized young people. Youngsters             confusion which makes it less likely they

  didn't direct foul language to, or use it in        will analyse their behaviour with clarity. In

  the presence of, teachers and other adults.         older children disciplined at school, a

  In that 'uncivilized' era, assaulting a teacher     physical punishment is likely to provoke

  or adult never would have crossed our               resentment and further misbehaviour.

  minds. Today, foul language and assaults

  against teachers are routine in many                Corporal punishment can lower a

  schools. For some kinds of criminal                 child's IQ "Child Corporal Punishment:

  behavior, I think we'd benefit from having          Spanking. The anti-spanking position".

  punishment along the lines of Singapore's           Religious tolerance: "Spanking lowers a

  caning as a part of our judicial system."           child's IQ: A study at the University of New

                                                      Hampshire, released in 1998-JUL, found
  Corporal punishment can ethically help              that spanking children apparently slows

  save a child's future Walter Williams.              down their intellectual development. 3 A

  "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment".            study of 960 children found an average 4

  Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: "Let's think about             point reduction in IQ among students, from

  cruelty. Today, it's not uncommon for               and average IQ of 102 (above average) for

  young criminals to be arrested, counseled           children who are not spanked, to an

  and released to the custody of a parent 20          average IQ 98 (below average) for who are.

  or 30 times before they spend one night in          A reduction of 4 points is enough to have a

  jail. Such a person is a very good candidate        significant negative functional effect on the

  for later serving a long prison sentence or,        students. More information."

  worse, facing the death penalty. If you

  interviewed such a person and asked:                Corporal punishment hampers

  "Thinking back to when you started your life        children's creativity Ms. Dawn Walker,

  of crime, would you have preferred a                executive director of the Canadian Institute

  punishment, such as caning, that might              of Child Health commented: "We know that

                                                      children who are under the threat of
  have set you straight or be where you are         violence or aggression develop a fight-or-

  today?" I'd bet my retirement money that          flight response system that has an impact

  he'd say he wished someone had caned              on creativity and imagination, both of which

  some sense into him. That being the case,         could influence their IQ...Children need

  which is more cruel: caning or allowing           discipline but not hitting."[3]

  such a person to become a criminal?"
                                                    Corporal punishment creates anti-

  Corporal punishment can make a                    social behavior. Andrew Grogan-Kaylor,

  valuable example of a student Oscar               University of Michigan. "Even minimal

  Goodman: "I also believe in a little bit of       amounts of spanking can lead to an

  corporal punishment going back to the days        increased likelihood in antisocial behavior

  of yore, where examples have to be                by children."[4]

  shown."[1]                                            Corporal punishment fosters
                                                        violence in society.
  General statements in support of

  corporal punishment Mark Benedict,                General statements against corporal
  Christian Family Foundations: "I also             punishment Psychologist H. Stephen
  believe the scriptural reference to the 'rod'     Glenn said "Corporal punishment is the
  best corresponds to a switch or perhaps a         least effective method [of discipline].
  flexible paddle."[2]                              Punishment reinforces a failure identity. It

                                                    reinforces rebellion, resistance, revenge

                                                    and resentment. And, what people who

                                                    spank children will learn is that it teaches

                                                    more about you than it does about them

                                                    that the whole goal is to crush the child. It's
                                                    not dignified, and it's not respectful."[5]

Abuse: Does corporal punish invite abuse?

Pro                                               Con

  Abuses do not demonstrate corporal                Corporal punishment often escalates to

  punishment is inherently wrong While it           child abuse "Child Corporal Punishment:

  is true that corporal punishment can be           Spanking. The anti-spanking position".

  abused, this does not demonstrate that it is      Religious tolerance: "It can escalate to

  always abused, or that it is inherently           abuse: Because a spanking works for a

  abusive. If it is used abusively, than            while, the parent often repeats the

  measures should be taken to limit such            spanking whenever the child misbehaves.
abuse, instead of eliminating the practice          Corporal punishment may then become a

altogether, which would be an over-                 standard response to any misbehavior. This
reaction.                                           can lead to increasingly frequent and

                                                    harsher spanking which can exceed the
There is a difference between corporal              "reasonable force" threshold and become
punishment and child abuse. Corporal                abuse."
punishment is designed to punish specific

acts of significant misbehavior and                 Corporal punishment of children is

delinquency. It is not a wanton and                 analogous to wife-beating. Comments

unreasonable act of violence. Child abuse,          by Parents and Teachers Against Violence in

on the contrary, is the unjustified and             Education (PTAVE) from their website at

unreasoned beating of children. The act of "Spanking does for a

child-abuse is not meant to punish a child,         child's development what wife-beating does

but is inflicted without restraint or concern       for a marriage."[6]

for the general welfare of a child. The

intention of corporal punishment, on the            Corporal punishment often over-

contrary, is meant to instill a level of            responds to innocent child behavior Jan

discipline in a child that is necessary to          Hunt. "Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids".

their future. It is in the child's best interest,   The Natural Child Project: "2. In many

whereas child-abuse is clearly not.                 cases of so-called 'bad behavior', the child

                                                    is simply responding in the only way he
Not clear whether corporal punishment               can, given his age and experience, to

increases abuse David Benatar. "Corporal            neglect of basic needs. Among these needs

Punishment Social Theory and Practice".             are: proper sleep and nutrition, treatment

Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998:            of hidden allergy, fresh air, exercise, and

"Clearly there are instances of abuse and of        sufficient freedom to explore the world

abusive physical punishment. But that is            around him. But his greatest need is for his

insufficient to demonstrate even a                  parents' undivided attention. In these busy

correlation between corporal punishment             times, few children receive sufficient time

and abuse, and a fortiori a causal                  and attention from their parents, who are

relationship. Research into possible links          often too distracted by their own problems

between corporal punishment and abuse               and worries to treat their children with

has proved inconclusive so far. Some                patience and empathy. It is surely wrong

studies have suggested that abusive                 and unfair to punish a child for responding

parents use corporal punishment more than           in a natural way to having important needs

nonabusive parents, but other studies have          neglected. For this reason, punishment is

shown this not to be the case.(7) The               not only ineffective in the long run, it is also

findings of one study,8 conducted a year            clearly unjust."
  after corporal punishment by parents was
                                                     Corporal punishment induces fear and
  abolished in Sweden, suggested that
                                                     despair in children Irvin Wolkoff.
  Swedish parents were as prone to serious
                                                     "Spanked child can become self-loathing
  abuse of their children as were parents in
                                                     adult." The Toronto Star. November 29,
  the United States, where corporal
                                                     1999: "The message a toddler gets from a
  punishment was (and is) widespread. These
                                                     slap or spanking is that a parent or other
  findings are far from decisive, but they
                                                     loved and trusted adult is prepared to
  caution us against hasty conclusions about
                                                     induce pain and even do physical harm to
  the abusive effects of corporal punishment."
                                                     force unquestioning obedience. That's

  Corporal punishment should be limited,             terrifying to a little kid...However well-

  but not abandoned David Benatar.                   intentioned, a slap registers as the

  "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and             shattering of the whole deal between parent

  Practice". Social Theory and Practice.             and child. Young children are left awash in

  Summer 1998: "Opponents of the corporal            feelings of fear, shame, rage, hostility, self-

  punishment of children are rightly critical of     destructiveness and betrayal that they can't

  its extensive use and the severity with            yet resolve or manage."[7]

  which it is all too often inflicted. They have

  been at pains to show that corporal

  punishment is not used merely as a last

  resort, but is inflicted regularly and for the

  smallest of infractions.(1) They have also

  recorded the extreme harshness of many

  instances of corporal punishment.(2) [...] I

  have no hesitation in joining the opposition

  to such practices, which are correctly

  labeled as child abuse. Where I believe that

  opponents of corporal punishment are

  wrong is in saying that physical punishment
  should never be inflicted."

Physical damage: Can corporal punishment cause physical

Pro                                                Con

  Physical injuries only occur in abusive            Corporal punishment can cause serious
  corporal punishment. Serious physical           physical damage The actual physical

  injuries only occur where disciplined,          damage inflicted via corporal punishment

  strategic corporal punishment becomes           on children can be horrifying. Examples can

  child abuse. There is a strict line between     be found of students needing treatment for

  the two (see above) and to ignore it is         broken arms, nerve and muscle damage,
  deliberately misleading.                        and cerebral haemorrhage. Spanking of the

                                                  buttocks can cause damage to the sciatic
  Corporal punishment does not foster             nerve and therefore the leg to which it
  violent tendencies.                             leads.

Sexual abuse: Is corporal punishment associated with sexual

Pro                                             Con

  Risks of sexual abuse with spanking             Corporal punishment on the buttocks is

  can be regulated. David Benatar.                a sexual violation Child Corporal

  "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and          Punishment: The anti-spanking position":

  Practice". Social Theory and Practice.          "Slapping or any other type of force used

  Summer 1998: "It is, of course, a concern       on the buttocks is a sexual violation: The

  that some parents or teachers might derive      buttocks are an erogenous zone of the

  sexual gratification from beating children,     human body. Their nerve system is

  but is it a reason to eliminate or ban the      connected to the body's sexual nerve

  practice? Someone might suggest that it is,     centers. Slapping them can involuntarily

  if the anticipated sexual pleasure led to       trigger feelings of sexual pleasure which

  beatings that were inappropriate--either        become mixed with the pain. This can lead

  because children were beaten when they          to confusion in the child's mind which

  should not have been, or if the punishment      influences the way in which they express

  were administered in an improper manner.        their sexuality as adults."

  However, if this is the concern, surely the

  fitting response would be to place

  limitations on the use of the punishment

  and, at least in schools, to monitor and
  enforce compliance."

Last resort: Is corporal punishment justified as "a last resort"?
Pro                                             Con

  Corporal punishment is justifiable as a         Violence of corporal punishment is

  last resort Ken Gallinger. "Ethically           never justified as "last resort" Laurie A.

  Speaking". Toronto Star: "Spanking is an        Couture. "10 pro-corporal punishment

  act of violence, so ethically, it could be      arguments & 10 commonsense answers".

  justified only if there was absolutely no       2003: "Argument #4: 'I only use corporal
  other way to improve the way kids act."[8]      punishment as a last resort.' Answer: This

                                                  reasoning teaches children that it is

                                                  acceptable to use violence as a last resort

                                                  to getting their way or to solving a difficult

                                                  problem. This teaches that violence is the

                                                  end result to frustrating situations that

                                                  seem to have no other solution. Wars are

                                                  fought on this principle. This argument is no

                                                  more acceptable than an angry spouse

                                                  saying that they "only" hit their mate "as a
                                                  last resort" to a problem."

                                                  Better ways exist; corporal punishment

                                                  is lazy way There are always ways to

                                                  discipline children that do not involve

                                                  violence, and which are inherently superior

                                                  than resorting to violence. Resorting to

                                                  violence is the lazy way out for parent or

Regulation: Can corporal punishment be properly regulated?

Pro                                             Con

  Corporal punishment can be regulated            Regulation of corporal punishment

  within orderly framework. Corporal              does not soften ill effects. No matter

  punishment must be used as part of a wider      how orderly you make the beating of a

  strategy and at the correct time: when          child, there are a number of adverse

  other immediate discipline has failed; when     effects. They will lose trust in the adults

  the child understands their behaviour and       who administer the beating; they learn that

  has had an opportunity to explain it; and       force is an acceptable factor in human
  after an initial warning and opportunity for      interaction; they feel humiliated and lose

  the child to repent. Crucially, the person        self-respect; and they build up resentment

  delivering the punishment must not be             that cannot be resolved at the time but may

  angry at the time. This undermines much of        lead to severe misbehaviour in the future.

  the hysterical argument against corporal

Psychology: Does corporal punishment increase rates of

Pro                                               Con

  Moderate corporal punishment is not               Corporal punishment increases

  psychologically damaging David Benatar.           depression and suicide Murray Straus, an

  "Corporal Punishment Social Theory and            influential researcher on violence at the

  Practice". Social Theory and Practice.            University of New Hampshire's Family

  Summer 1998: "[Claim:] Corporal                   Research Lab, writes in his book Beating

  punishment is psychologically damaging            the Devil out of Them, that corporal

  [...] Although there is evidence that             punishment increases rates of depression

  excessive corporal punishment can                 and suicide.[9]

  significantly increase the chances of such

  psychological harm, most of the                   Corporal punishment fosters

  psychological data are woefully inadequate        criminality and delinquency. Dr. Ralph

  to the task of demonstrating that mild and        Welsh, who has given psychological exams

  infrequent corporal punishment has such           to over 2,000 delinquents has said: " is

  consequences. [...] First, the studies are        now apparent that the recidivist male

  not conclusive. The main methodological           delinquent who was never struck with a

  problem is that the studies are not               belt, board, extension cord, fist, or an

  experiments but post facto investigations         equivalent is virtually nonexistent. Even

  based on self-reports. [...] The second point     after 10 years, the full impact of this

  is that even if Professor Straus's findings       discovery is still difficult to comprehend."

  are valid, the nature of the data is

  insufficiently marked to justify a moral

  condemnation of mild and infrequent
  corporal punishment."
Teacher authority: Does corporal punishment represent a failure
of teacher authority?

Pro                                                Con

  Corporal punishment does not                       Corporal punishment represents failure

  represent teacher failures David                   to engage students The Christian Science

  Benatar. "Corporal Punishment Social               Monitor, 1989-MAR-21: "The fundamental

  Theory and Practice". Social Theory and            need of American education is to find ways

  Practice. Summer 1998: "there is a big             of engaging today's children in the thrill of

  difference between [...] a failure in the          learning. Fear of pain has no place in that

  pupil, and a failure in the teacher. In either     process."[10]

  case it is true, in some sense, that the

  teacher failed to discourage the child from        Corporal punishment reflects

  doing wrong--failed to prevent failure in the      breakdown of communication American

  child. However, it is not a failure for which      Medical Association, (1985): "Infliction of

  the teacher necessarily is responsible. I am       pain or discomfort, however minor, is not a

  well aware that the responsibility for             desirable method of communicating with

  children's wrongdoing is all too often placed      children."[11]

  exclusively at the door of children
                                                     Corporal punishment distracts from
  themselves, without due attention to the
                                                     teaching and training. Bill Gothard: "We
  influences to which they are subjected.
                                                     don't focus on corporal punishment. We
  However, there is a danger that in rejecting
                                                     focus on teaching and training."[12]
  this incorrect evaluation, teachers (and

  parents) will be blamed for all shortcomings
  in children."

  Corporal punishment helps protect

  teachers and adults Walter Williams.

  "Making a Case for Corporal Punishment".

  Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: "During my youth, I

  might have been doing something

  mischievous, such as throwing stones. An

  adult would come over to me and ask,

  'Does your mother know you're out here

  throwing stones?' I'd reply, 'No sir or no

  ma'am,' and hope that the matter ended

  there. [...] Today, it's quite different. An

  adult correcting a youngster risks being
  cursed and possibly assaulted. That's a sad

  commentary. Adults are justifiably afraid of

  children. Do we Americans as parents,

  teachers, principals and others in positions

  of authority have the guts and willpower to
  control our youngsters?"

Generations: What about people that were spanked, but "turned
out fine"?

Pro                                                Con

  Generations of people have been                    People "doing fine" after corporal

  subjected to corporal punishment.                  punishment were harmed Laurie A.

  People have been subjected to corporal             Couture. "Argument #1: "It didn't do ME

  punishment for years and have turned out           any harm!". Child "Answer:

  just fine. Individuals of all types in society     Often people who declare this typical

  continually give testimony to their own            argument do so very defensively. They may

  happy and disciplined lives, following             feel they must defend the actions of their

  corporal punishment as children, and there         caretakers. To do otherwise is to admit that

  is no reason to doubt the validity of these        as children, they never deserved to have

  claims. Indeed, if someone was spanked as          pain inflicted upon them. They must also
  a child and turned out more disciplined,           admit to the feelings of fear, anger and

  successful, and happy as a result - even if        mistrust that may have resulted from being

  only according to their own interpretations -      hit by loved ones who were supposed to

  who is to say that their judgment to deal          keep them safe from harm. Often, people

  with their kids in similar ways is invalid.        who use this argument use or have used

  How can the government restrict their right        corporal punishment on their own children,

  to exercise this judgment and what they            thus defending their actions to minimize
  see as within the interests of their children.     guilt. However, their actions reveal that

                                                     corporal punishment DID do them harm: It

                                                     perpetuated the cycle of violence that they
                                                     now endorse or inflict upon children."

International law: Is corporal punishment consistent with
international law?

Pro                                              Con

  Corporal punishment is an issue for              Corporal punishment is illegal under

  national not international law. Corporal         international law. Article 19 of the UN

  punishment is an issue that is sensitive to      Convention on the Rights of the Child

  individual cultures in different countries       Article clearly prohibits any physical

  around the world. For this reason, it is         violence or punishment against children,

  wrong to apply international law at the          which includes corporal punishment:

  expense of national law. Each nation must        "States Parties shall take all appropriate

  make this judgement based on public              legislative, administrative, social and

  feelings regarding the practice, as this is      education measures to protect the child

  one of the more important elements in            from all forms of physical or mental

  whether it can be deemed acceptable or           violence, injury or abuse, neglect or

  not. Like many moral issues, there is not        negligent treatment, maltreatment or

  blanket answer, and it is important to defer     exploitation, including sexual abuse, while

  to local populations' interpretation of          in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)

  morality and culture to determine the            or any other person who has the care of the
  appropriate public policy and law.               child. Such protective measures should, as

                                                   appropriate, include effective procedures for

                                                   the establishment of social programs to

                                                   provide necessary support for the child and

                                                   for those who have the care of the child, as

                                                   well as for other forms of prevention and

                                                   for identification, reporting, referral,

                                                   investigation, treatment and follow-up of

                                                   instances of child maltreatment described
                                                   heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial

Religion: Is corporal punishment justifiable under religious

Pro                                              Con

  Quotations from the Bible that promote           Scripture can be cited to enforce or
corporal punishment.                           debunk corporal punishment. "The Devil

   Proverbs 23:14. The authorship is           can cite Scripture for his purpose."

   traditionally attributed to King            [Shakespeare] The Bible frequently

   Solomon: "Thou shalt beat him with the      condones practices that are outrageous to

   rod, and shalt deliver his soul from        the modern sensibility. It sometimes

   hell."                                      promotes what would appear to be

   "He who spareth his rod hateth his son,     retribution or wanton acts of violence, while

   but he who loveth him is chasteneth         at other times it promotes a more Jesus-

   him betimes." (King Solomon, in the         like philosophy of complete non-violence

   Book of Proverbs [13:24].                   and compassion. So, while there are

   "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of    passage in the Bible that give support to

   a child; The rod of correction will drive   corporal punishment, there are also ones

   it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15)          that clearly condemn it. For this reason,

                                               little value should be assigned to individual
   "Do not withhold correction from a
                                               passages in the Bible as they relate to
   child, for if you beat him with a rod, he
                                               corporal punishment.
   will not die. You shall beat him with a

   rod. And deliver his soul from hell."
   (Proverbs 23:13)

Shared By: