You're still confusing discipline with physical punishment. Nobody argued that children shouldn't experience consequences, boundaries, or accountability. What you're claiming is that physically assaulting children produces better outcomes than disciplining them without violence. Those are two entirely different propositions.
The Gemini response you quoted doesn't even mention corporal punishment. It discusses the consequences of growing up without discipline. You're assuming that children who aren't beaten automatically lack discipline, which is a false equivalence.
And yes, your claim requires evidence. If you're asserting that beating children makes them more resilient, disciplined, and psychologically stable, then you need to demonstrate that relationship. Simply calling it common sense doesn't establish causation.
You also haven't identified a single methodological flaw in either study. Your opinions about the researchers, universities, or pronouns have no bearing on whether their findings are accurate.
Your comparison to criminal punishment is equally questionable. Research from the US National Institute of Justice indicates that the certainty of consequences matters considerably more for deterrence than their severity. Increasing the severity of punishment doesn't automatically improve behavior.
You seem to believe that suffering is inherently educational, but suffering and learning aren't interchangeable. A child can learn that an action has consequences without learning that violence is an acceptable response to disobedience.
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that because violence can produce immediate compliance, it must produce better long-term outcomes. That's precisely the assumption the research challenges.
You can continue insisting that beating children works because you experienced it, but that's still an anecdote, not evidence that it works better than nonviolent discipline.
