hell naw dare you to

i think they shouldnt because if they were to hit a kid they might take it to far. plus teachers sometimes might just hit a kid just cause they dont like him or hes just talking to much. Most kids in school will fight backso if you can take the kid on be my guest an hit him but it aint gone be to pretty tell you that much you hit me an imma hit you back. i like my taters boiled

MAN AINT NOBODY GUNA JUS HIT ME AND WALK AWAY SO TEACHERS SHOULDNT BE HITTN NO BODY CUZ ITS NOT RITE WAT IF I WENT AROUND HITTN THEM YAAA THEY WOULDNTLIKE IT.

yea many teachers dont like their students so yea i think they would just start hitting kids for no reason so if they took it far kids would start fighting back!

It does have the potintioal to be abuesed

if my teacher hit me, i would hit them in the chest so hard that their shoulders touch!

Please refer to a dictionary, or speak to the teacher that runs this forum about proper English grammar and vocabulary.

On topic; I slightly agree with what is said here. If a teacher physically hurts a student, said student should take action. But in the case that the law was passed, allowing authority figures to discipline a child in a physical way(hey look, the senate just passed the bill! for cops though), then retaliation would be met with even more physically harming punishments. Therefore, any child with a stereotypical tough guy/jock attitude, would be pointlessly rebelling. This would essentially cause forced conformity within the schools, in other words, a dictatorship.

These reasons, plus the anger of the parents, is the reason we don't bend kids over and bruise them with switches anymore.

/overthinking the topic

I think your parents just put half of you in a microwave instead of holding you in front of it. (case in point Mr. doesn't know how caps lock works) In Splendora they still enforce physical punishment and I can ***** you without the proper steps taken you can't receive "pops" as they were called.