The Instigator
EHS_Debate
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
versaill24
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

All policemen should use tazers as a last resort.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
EHS_Debate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 10372
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

EHS_Debate

Pro

"Last January officers in Llandudno, North Wales, fired the weapon [tazer] at an 89-year-old war veteran who had gone missing from his care home and threatened to cut his throat with a piece of glass. Police said they took the decision to stun him for his own safety, which suggests that none of the officers present was man enough to remove the piece of glass from the feeble grip of a very old man."

As preliminary definitions for this debate round, I would like define a few terms that will be referred to within the debate.

1) tazers - weapons with charges that can prove to be lethal

2) last resort - when all options have run out

I would like to begin this debate by additionally providing some key observations.

My opponent will lead you to believe that a tazer can be a useful tool for police. I concede to the fact that it may be useful, but that it should only be used when all else fails.

It is uncalled for when a police officer uses a tazer as a first resort. It is inhumane and clearly shows that the man wielding it is irresponsible.

It is claimed that tazers have killed 334 people between 2001 and August 2008 in the US.

I will provide a couple hypothetical examples of how bad of an idea it is to allow policemen the tazer to use willy-nilly.

=Example One=

A routine traffic stop on Highway 99. The police officer pulls over a woman and her 13-year-old daughter for driving 5 miles over the speed limit. The police officer then takes out his 50,000-volt tazer and repeatedly tazes the mother. When simply, the officer could have politely asked for her drivers license and given her a ticket.

=Example Two=

Two kids decide to play a joke on their grandfather, aged 87. Two kids call 9-1-1 and report that a very elderly man has broken into their house. The police then drive to the caller's house and find the old man sleeping on a sofa. The kids tell the officers that the old man makes weird noises and continues to sleep even though Saturday Night Live is broadcasting. The officers then get furious and leap at the old man with their tazers, shocking him multiple times.

=REAL Example 3=

The quote comes from Daniel Sylvester, the 46-year-old owner of a security firm, who was walking down the street when a police van screeched to a halt.

"He didn't know what they wanted, but obeyed when they told him to approach slowly. 'I then had this incredible jolt of pain on the back of my head,' he explains. The electricity made him spasm; as he fell to the ground, he felt his teeth scatter on the tarmac and his bowels open. Then they shot me again in the head. I can't describe the pain.' (Another victim says it is like someone reached into my body to rip my muscles apart with a fork.') The police then saw he was not the person they were looking for, said he was free to go, and drove off."

=REAL Example 4=

Eric Hammock of Texas died in April 2005 after receiving more than 20 Taser shocks by Fort Worth police officers. Maurice Cunningham of South Carolina, while an inmate at the Lancaster County Detention Center, was subjected to continuous shock for 2 minutes 49 seconds, which a medical examiner said caused cardiac arrhythmia and his subsequent death. He was 29 years old and had no alcohol or drugs in his system.

After provided with these examples and observations it is safe to assume that tazers should only be used by policemen as a last resort.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

=References=

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
versaill24

Con

Okay, first of all there is no place named this: Llandudno, North Wales. Second of all last resort is also the name of a song. This is why tasers should be used as a first resort:
A definition:
First resort: When the option is the first thing that comes to mind
Also, tasers are needed for protection: http://www.ppao.gov.on.ca...
So, I conclude this round by saying tasers are always needed.
Debate Round No. 1
EHS_Debate

Pro

I will begin by refuting my opponents case.

First of all my opponent says that Llandudno, North Wales is not a real place. On the contrary, it is very beautiful, and in fact, real.

http://images.google.com...

He then goes on to say that, "last resort is also the name of a song". This statement is irrelevant because I have provided a definition of last resort, to which he does not argue and therefor concedes to.

"First resort: When the option is the first thing that comes to mind" is another one of my opponent's arguments bent on supporting his case. However, this statement itself does not provide anything to advocate for the negation of the resolution. If, the video he posted was indeed evidence to support how first resort tazering was used, he is clearly mistaken. As was shown, the police officers took the man in their arms to escort them away from the scene. The man resisted to the point to where two police officers could not take the man into custody, thus having to taze him. Nevertheless, I have shown that the man was not tazered as a first resort. My opponent's video then has no meaning behind it because none of my opponent's case provides any detail on it.

Finally my opponent states that, "So, I conclude this round by saying tasers are always needed." However that does not apply directly to the resolution. I, too, believe that tazers are always needed, but only to be used as a last resort. My opponent has not sufficiently refuted my points whereas I have countered all of his.

For these reasons and more I plead an affirmative vote. I stand ready for round 3.
versaill24

Con

First of all, google images is not a reliable source at all, i need the link of the official website of the city, which i do not see on google images. Therefore my opponent is incompetent and wrong. Also, in the video, they used tazing as a first resort. They tazed him for what he said, if my opponent had their audio on. Therefore, my opponent is doubly incompetent. Tazing is not that life threatening and my definitions:
Last Resort: is the debut single from the rock band Papa Roach's debut major-label album (and second album overall), Infest.
Debate Round No. 2
EHS_Debate

Pro

Here is the source you wanted about Llandudno and it's existence.

http://www.llandudno.com...

"They tazed him for what he said, if my opponent had their audio on. Therefore, my opponent is doubly incompetent. "
First of all, I never said my audio wasn't on. Nonetheless, it is clear the the victim was restrained as a first resort, then he resisted, then he was tazered later. Thus debunking my opponents arguments.

My opponent says that "Tazing is not that life threatening".
As I have shown with evidence earlier, tazing has the potential to kill, so it is extremely life-threatening.

He then goes on to try to venture off-topic and attempts to provide an alternate definition of last-resort. This shall be regarded irrelevant to the debate.

Because my opponent has not adequately refuted my arguments, it can be seen that a affirmative ballot should be cast. Thank-you for your time.
versaill24

Con

"Here is the source you wanted about Llandudno and it's existence.

http://www.llandudno.com...;
This source is not reliable because it is not a government website. My opponent could have made that website while debating to prove his point true.

The victim was tazed as a first resort because the song last resort by Papa Roach was not playing to show it was a last resort. So I believe tazing should be used as a first resort because it quickly solves the situation and does very minimal damage to the victim. Tazers are given to the police for a reason, to use them.

Having refuted these arguments, I believe the negative ballot should be cast.
Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
We are working on a rap battle now lol
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Despite how convincing this argument was: "Second of all last resort is also the name of a song."

I voted PRO in arguments/sources
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
I wasn't presupposing anything. The examples showed that the tazer was not used as a last resort.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
they were meant to be somewhat ridiculous. :)
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Your first two examples are absolutely ridiculous. You're presupposing that, if tazers aren't a last resort, they must be a first resort. False dichotomy, for sure.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Yes. A pistol, for instance, can be shot at longer ranges. I tazer must be used within a proximity. Using a tazer would also pose a greater danger to the police officer because the officer would have to be closer.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
So, the use of a gun or other lethal force should be considered before a tazer?
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
"The victim was tazed as a first resort because the song last resort by Papa Roach was not playing to show it was a last resort."

LOL

So the cops must put in their tape of Papa Roach "Last Resort", a rip-off of Green Day's "Brainstew", to show that the tazing is the last resort. Points to Con.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by versaill24 7 years ago
versaill24
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by AquaGekko23 7 years ago
AquaGekko23
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
EHS_Debateversaill24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60