In-Vivo Live Debate: Summary Smacking is an effective form of discipline Negative argument stage 2 The affirmative defined corporal

punishment to be the use of physical force towards a child for the purpose of control and/or correction. However, our working definition defines discipline as the guidance of childrens moral, emotional and physical development, further enabling children to take responsibility for themselves when they are older. Holden (2002) suggests two prevalent forms of discipline; positive and negative. He suggests positive (or inductive) discipline methods as being those in which guide and assist children through non-violent means, negative (or power-assertive) discipline is defined as methods violent. Smith (2006) and Kochanshas et al (2001) argues that powerassertive methods are not as effective as inductive discipline in promoting moral internalisation. Therefore, as argued by Smith (2006) corporal punishment may legitimise violence for children in interpersonal relationships hindering social relations in which they experience thus being ineffective. Social information processing theory identified by Gruse and Goodnow (1994) suggests that the major long-term goal of family discipline is to help children internalise the values and attitudes of society to guide their own behaviour. Marshall (2005) identifies that physical discipline as deleterious for all children, regardless of culture, with the negative consequences of server punishment being replicated across cultures. In regards to the impacts of lived experiences, the position of children in the context of society from a post-structuralist perspective suggests that the concept of ones self is predicated upon multiple subject positions within the same individual. The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child discuss the subjectivity of children in the sense that, as subjects within society, children have the rights to be heard and have his or her views respected (Tulali). Schneider and Stern (2005) identify two main sources of knowledge generation in children, those being conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge. Children are more likely to use procedural knowledge when solving routine tasks, but tend to rely on conceptual knowledge for solving, until now, unknown tasks. In saying this, the way in which children learn and respond to discipline may be hindered, and such knowledge bases may impact on factors such an the intergenerational transmission of violence and re-victimisation (McKenzie, 2011). Therefore the concept of positive discipline is that in which our argument would support with principles such as understanding the

way in which children think and feel and the notion of problem solving, thus building mutually respectful relationships, further enhancing childrens competence and confidence to handle challenging situations through teaching children successful social skills and personal accountability (Tulali). Negative argument stage 4 For the purpose of this debate, Article 19 of the Child rights committee is essential to highlight in stating every child has the right to freedom from any form of corporal punishment, in any degree, at any place (Siraj, 2010). It may be suggested that this is somewhat supported through the affirmatives argument in the example of Sweden, half of the children in the study didnt think that their parents have the right to punish them in such a way. The affirmative also argue the point of Swedens introduction of the anti-smacking laws in 1979 that aimed to create a cultural spill over of non-violent forms of discipline. However, Siraj (2010) identifies culture is considered a contentious domain in which values and practices are debated, contested and changed, thus requiring a shift from the present perception of culture as a static space, to a more dynamic and fluid set of values and practices. Earlier, the affirmative argued that there are many factors that may influence the way in which impacts will affect children and suggests that there is no empirical evidence or proof that these effects were caused by smacking. However, as concluded in a 2005 study found that children who had experienced physical punishment, regardless of whether it was perceived as normative or not, were more aggressive and anxious. The affirmative argue that, as according to Gunnoe, smacking does not lead to aggression in children. However, the notion of intergenerational transmission argues that smacking does in fact lead to increased aggression in children, as suggested by Bandura, learned behaviours may lead to a cycle of reoccurring or increased levels of violence and/or aggression in children. One of the key arguments put forth by the affirmative team is that, and I quote, Punishment essentially teaches that negative behaviour has negative consequences...developing maturity. This emphasises and moreover encourages major discourses surrounding children in todays society. These discourses being the romantic discourse, an ideology that children embody a state of innocence, therefore positioning children need adult protection from the corrupt outside world (Kehily, 2004). In regards to the Swedish example put forward by the affirmative, it was identified that parents had still not found constructive alternatives to physical discipline and instead acted out violently

through frustration. The findings of this study were based on what the author believed was represented, thus not presenting empirical evidence supporting her claim. The final point made by the affirmative team is that children develop best when their parents love but firmly guide their actions with discipline. Our argument is not that children, as a result of being smacked, will develop into bad human beings rather we suggest there are more beneficial and effective methods of disciplining children. As Tulalis Policy Brief finds that smacking children as a disciplinary method rarely teachers children alternative behaviours, thus not being effective.