An officer exersizing self defense should not be condemed with the title "Police Brutality"
Debate Rounds (3)
You have the burden of proof. Please give your arguments for your resolution.
What I think the opposition means in the resolution is in reference to things like shootings and other incidents which are often labeled as police brutality, and may simply be self defense. I think it also references simple and perhaps obvious acts of self defense as well. I am here to present arguments against the resolution, that is all, I have no predispositions to the resolution in any way, shape or form.
Argument 1: conflating police brutality with self defense will drastically decrease the power of the police, this is a good thing.
Subpoint A: Right now the police have too much power and it goes unchecked.
Sum- Police are given too much power and what's more they are given too much leeway with that power, this causes abuse in society and undermines the position of police officer. police should be more like those in the UK and other European nations which are seen as "citizens in uniform", citizens who guide other citizens. The fact that we take our current approach as opposed to an approach closer to Europe's has resulted in catastrophic damages to United States liberties, freedoms and rights.
To assess the power of the police let us first look at some facts. The first of which is that "Police in the US Kill Citizens at Over 70 Times the Rate of Other First-World Nations". This is a glaringly obvious testimant to the significance of this problem. In fact, the problem of citizen abuse by the police has sharply increased in recent years, while the amount of violence between citizens has gone down in the years before the spike of police violence. In fact, in 2014 only 50 American soldiers were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan while the number of US citizens killed by police in the same year was over 1,000. We can accredit police brutality to a longstanding problem of power abuse in the police force, as well as many laws which give them too many rights over the citizens, furthermore law wich equip the police with military grade weapons can also attribute to a high fatality rate among citizens....Another peice of evidence will show that police are protected by the judcial system and are convicted of crimes they are charged with less often than those in the general population:
"Of the more than 8,300 misconduct accusations (involving almost 11,000 officers) in Packman’s database from April 2009 through the end of 2010, 3,238 resulted in legal action."
That's a rate of a little less than 40% of allegations brought against police which result in legal action (keep in mind that legal action is often a simple paid leave). Further studies have shown that the conviction rate of police is closer to 33% with 12% actually being incarsarated, and in the general population the conviction rate is 68% with an incarsaration rate of 48%. Police protection is important, and should happen, but to this extent is absurd and clearly an abuse. Again I would like to show the disparity between the US and other powers. In 2014 Canada only killed 1 person with their police force and in 2013 the police in the UK killed 0 people, even if we take into account their population this shows an absolutely tremendous gap in our police brutality. If you are still suspect about population then let me introduce you to China: "whose population is 4 and 1/2 times the size of the United States, recorded 12 killings by law enforcement officers in 2014...Let that sink in. Law enforcement in the US killed 92 times more people than a country with nearly 1.4 billion people.".
Subpoint B: By labeling all incidents of police confrontation as police brutality we can reduce police power through political change.
Labeling of all police conflict may seem ignorant, but is the surest way to reduce police power, this is because it incited political change. One the best things about America is that we can truely change things for the better when we all put our minds together and excersize our rights to pass bills and vote on them. We have the right political system and the right people in office to make the police change, so let's harness it. Peope already label controversial incidents as police brutality, all this is left is to let them be convinced that even such incidences of police self defence are really just examples of police brutality, this would have the average person be convinced that there really were no good cops. When people think there are no good cops, they must seek to reform them and the only way to reform them is through our power in the government. We can look at politics as a business, the politicians will give whatever is in the highest demand and thus if reformation of the police is in high demand, it will be given. This is especially true considering that police make up a reletively small part of the population and hold little power in the government, furthermore police as a whole have little influence in politics. So, again, labeling all instances of police self defense as police brutatlity shows the average person that all police are bad, which causes pulblic upheavel politically which causes change. The fact that we cause change also serves another advantage, the promotion of rights, any use of our rights can said to be inherently good, unless it detracts from our rights over all, the use of rights that would result in this instance will, on balance, lead to an over all expansion of rights, so it is indeed inherently good, thus we should agree to the con side due to the fact that it not only reduces police power, but that it stregthens our rights and inherently promotes them.
Don't mistake me, I know that conflation of police brutatlity with self defense is not true, but the effects of it are good overall and that good outweighs the lie itself.
End argument 1
In conclusion, as can be noted by our high police murder rate and our low conviction rate of police, as well as the comparison of deaths in the US to countries such as Canada, the UK and even China, we can see that the police hold too much power. In order to fix this power abuse we should vote con, as doing so would be a lie but would however fix the problem of police brutality through political change, and furthermore we should vote con for the simple fact that it promotes the use of our rights in a positive way. Thanks for reading and I look forward to my opponent's reply!
I dont feel the need to post an arguement for someone who agrees... I will suggest a Tie if not then I will continue to debate...
The other team is pro, meaning they agree that an officer exercizing self defense should NOT be condemed with the title of police brutality. I, as the con team, agree that an officer exercizing self defense SHOULD be condemned with the title of police brutality.
I gave serveral reasons for my side all of which con has ignored, meaning he agrees to them (silence is concession in debates). Thus pro agrees that we can actually reduce and stop the problem of police brutality being that the labeling of all police self defense as brutality will lead to political change. Secondly he conceedes that the very action of exercizing those rights to vote is enough to vote con. I do NOT agree to pro's side, pro clearly didn't read my argument at all and he can no longer refute these claims in the last round, as this is unfair to me, and gives me no time to refute his arguments, PRO has lost this without a doubt. Thanks for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: ff, no cites from pro, lackluster arguments from pro and concession of con's arguments, the perpetual ff was bad conduct
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.