This chapter analyzes the traditional defense of spanking with the emergent criticism of spanking, identifying the claims and counterclaims spanking’s advocates and critics have made in the popular press since mid-century. It argues that the debate over spanking has become more complex in its themes and vocabularies. Spanking remains a fighting word, and what people are fighting about is both complex and changing. In sum, since mid-century advocates and critics in the popular press have been invoking several different meanings of spanking. Murray Straus and Richard Gelles describe spanking as an act of violence that models violent behavior for the child and teaches children that violence is socially acceptable. Spanking’s advocates traditionally use a rhetoric and vocabulary that paints spanking as the reasonable reaction of responsible parents to their wayward children. They claim that spanking is the sign of nonpermissiveness; anticipatory socialization; God’s will; a morally neutral childrearing tool; and a psychic release.