Some people today argue it is acceptable to use physical force to discipline children, but others think it is completely unacceptable. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Some people believe corporal punishment is justifiable, while others are completely against it. While both sides have compelling reasons, in my opinion the use of physical force for disciplinary purposes is unacceptable in public spaces, including schools. Supporters of painful punishment think it is effective for disciplinary purposes. Children will hesitate to break rules when they think about consequences of hurtful (hurtful tends to be used for hurtful words rather than physical punishment) treatments. Additionally, they think it is fair for someone to be hit when they hit another. Physical punishment can make it even between bullies and those bullied. On the other hand, advocates for zero-tolerance to violent punishment think it is morally wrong. They think children should learn democratic attitudes to solving problems and corporal punishment does the opposite. They think misbehaviours can be reformed by a thoughtful lecture. To summarise, discussions about corporal punishment involve both its effectiveness and morality. When the former is emphasised, people lean towards physical force, while the latter sways people towards more rational solutions. Both standpoints are somewhat reasonable, and I think schools should be restricted in exercising physical force to discipline students because society generally accepts the concept that violence solves nothing.

Some people nowadays argue that it is acceptable to use physical force to discipline children, but others think it is completely unacceptable. Discuss your(I'm not sure what you were trying to say here) views and give your opinion. Some people believe corporal punishment is justifiable, while others are completely against it. Both sides have compelling reasons, and in my opinion, the use of physical force for discipline purposes is unacceptable in public spaces, including school. Supporters of painful punishment think of it as effective for disciplinary purposes. Children will hesitate to break rules when they think about the painful consequences. Additionally, they think it is fair (or justifiable) for a child to be hit when they hurt another. They argue physical punishment can make it even between bullies and those bullied. On the other hand, advocates with zero tolerance for violent punishment think it is morally wrong. They think children should learn democratic attitudes to solve problems, and corporal punishment does the opposite. They think misbehavior can be reformed by a thoughtful lecture. To summarize, discussions about corporal punishment involve both its effectiveness and morality. When the focus is on the former, some people will lean toward (or "may favor") physical force, while the latter leads people toward more rational solutions. Both standpoints are somewhat reasonable, but I think schools should be restricted from exercising physical force when disciplining students because society generally accepts the concept that violence solves nothing.