The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Are K9 Units useful to a police force?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,886 times Debate No: 67785
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I believe that K9 Units are an essential part to any police force. K9 Units help the police in many different ways. First of all, K9 Units can help track down dangerous criminals. Also, the dogs can sniff for illegal drugs. K9 Units are also very well behaved, causing no trouble. K9 Units can also go after an armed criminal and can help protect the police officers. I would like to see what people have to say about this, thank you.


One must agree to the points posted by my opponent. Although I have to disagree with on of your points. You said that K9 units are well behaved and cause no trouble. But, they require time and skills. And still them may cause troubles of attacking a person without being allowed to. We must agree that K9's may be somewhat "scary", and when they are brought up and seen by a criminal, it may startle the criminal and even provoke them to fight or try to flee. It is obvious that a K9 unit cannot communicate or defend themselves very well, and using them to replace police man doesn't seem to be a good idea. In conclusion, K9 units should not be used in a police force because it may provoke a criminal to fight or flee, and K9 units cannot communicate, and defend itself.
Debate Round No. 1


K9 Units are trained to listen to their trainers, so they will do as they are told. K9 Units are usually trained to certain commands, so they will know whether to "stay" or to "attack".

As seen here, the K9 is pretty well defended.

Also, K9's would not attack random citizens, proven by this next statement.
"A BCSO K-9 reaches the age of retirement usually around 7 or 8 years old, or when it can no longer physically endure the stresses of the job. After retirement, they are usually adopted by their handlers and live out their retirement interacting with their family."

This proves that a K9 can be around normal civilians and not attack them.

A K9 is fast, so if a criminal tried to flee, the K9 could catch up to them in a heartbeat.
Also, if a criminal tries to attack a K9, it depends how. If the criminal is up close, he/she has no chance. However, if they are farther away, they have a slightly better chance, but still slim due to the dog's armor.

"Once a dog is chosen as a BCSO K-9 trainee, it will go through a Florida Department of Law Enforcement approved Patrol K-9 training course. The K9 Patrol Training Course consist of 400 hours of training, which covers obedience, man work (physical apprehension), recalls, tracking, building searches and agility training. Once a canine completes the patrol training course, the handler and his K-9 still have to be certified by two FDLE approved evaluators. After the K-9 team passes certification, they will go through additional training in narcotics or explosives detection.

After the K-9 team passes their certification(s), the training does not stop.Continuous maintenance training must be conducted or the canines will lose proficiency in their trained tasks."

My source:


BrianHotshot forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Please vote pro.


BrianHotshot forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's initial counter-arguments were pretty good, but Pro re-rebutted a lot of them, and thus Pro's arguments were too impactful in the end. So, arguments go to Pro. Source points go to Pro because they helped make his arguments stronger. Conduct goes to Pro for Con's round forfeits.