The Instigator
DebateHero82
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
dkim
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

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 2 votes the winner is...
DebateHero82
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,479 times Debate No: 22877
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

DebateHero82

Pro

Tasers should only be used to protect the police or the public if they are in immediate and direct physical harm (e.g. somebody raising a gun or fist to hit them). Instead they should physically lift the person out of the vehicle or call for backup to help if it is that important to move somebody. Non violence should not be met with violence. Just because it is not deadly force (most of the time) does not mean it should be used just to get corporation.
dkim

Con

Hey, I'd like to debate.
Just to clarify a few things:
What do you mean by allowed? are you proposing a piece of legislature making the act of cops tasering you illegal if you refuse to get out of a vehicle?
in your first speech, what do you mean by it should not be used to get corporation? did you mean cooperation?
Do you agree that if tasers are not allowed, more deadly means of force such as guns should not be allowed?

i will state my arguments in this speech, if you intended it only for acceptance, then just tell me and i'll forfeit a speech or whatever you want.

First off:
vehicle: A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance: a space vehicle-(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

By this definition humans are vehicles, as they transport matter and also our "souls." It is physically impossible for ourselves to get out of our body, perhaps with the exception of death, which means that the resolution already is forced to either kill people, which is worse then tasering, or make exceptions, which is a reason that the judge should vote con against the resolution.

Next:
the pro's own speech conceeds that tasers should only be used if the cops are in immediate and direct physical harm.however there are cases where a criminal in a vehicle is armed and starts shooting at the cops. This is obviously a contradiction of the resolution and is another reason to vote con.

Next:
The pro gives no viable alternatives that satisfy their criteria of being nondeadly, or more harmful than tasers. Lifting criminals out of their vehicles seems absurd. if the police call for backup, that just means more tasers, once again, tasers are the least aggressive method of solving the problem in cases where the criminal is armed in a vehicle.

Next:
Tasers and other electrical weapons have proved extremely effective in even more dangerous situations, such as in warfare. the electrical railgun is capable of "ensuring wars with no casualties"-(http://www.navyleague.org...)
Debate Round No. 1
DebateHero82

Pro

-Yes, I am proposing legislation to make tasering illegal somebody simply because they refuse to get out of their vehicle. I have seen this done before and it should not be allowed. That is my point

-Yes I meant cooperation

-I never said tasers should not be allowed. I said they should not be allowed in this case. I think they are misused in other examples too, but we will stick with this one example to make the argument more targeted. There are cases when tasers should be used and cases where guns should be used. Neither one should be outlawed completely by cops, but like I said let us stick with the vehicle example

-I don't care about "acceptance" of an argument. I don't even know what that means. I just joined this site a few weeks ago and am interested in the philosophical reason why people believe something and want to know if they can back up their argument with sound reasoning as opposed to simply saying "that is what the law is" or "that is what the courts have ruled" or "if you don't like it, leave" or "the people voted that way" kind of arguments

-I don't really care about the technical or legal definition of a "vehicle". I am talking about a car, truck, semi or whatever else enclosed motor vehicle. And I definitely don't care about "souls" This argument is not about semantics. Please don't waste my time be going off on that kind of a tangent

-If a criminal is in a vehicle and shooting at a cop or is causing others to be in direct immediate physical harm then yes it is ok for a cop to use a taser or gun more likely in that case. As I said in my original statement the situation I oppose is somebody who is simply verbally refusing to get of their vehicle. They have no weapon. I am not saying being inside a vehicle is like being safe on base and the cops can't do anything to you. I am sure you could assume I did not mean such a silly notion so the more of those silly semantic arguments you can avoid, the faster this will go.

-Lifting people out of their vehicle is not absurd. Cops subdue people all the time and will have to do that eventually to cuff them up and frisk them anyway. I think if you poll 100 people, most if not all would say they would rather get forcefully lifted up than have 100,000 jolts of electricity forced through their body so a taser is not the least aggressive method. It might be for EASIEST for the cop but is very violent and shocking for the "criminal."

-If police call for backup, it should not increase the likelihood that a taser will be used. There could be a million tasers lying on a table or there could be 1 and the likelihood I use one should be dependent on the person who has control of it which is the whole point I am arguing....THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE IT IN THIS CASE, be it one cop or 10 cops.

-I could not care less about the navy league or warfare. Once again. Please stick to the issue
dkim

Con

Alright Thanks for clarifying my questions
First I'll address some core matters of the activity of debate.
I really think you should make the resolution much clearer than this if you intended it this way. It's actually impossible to debate if you decide to completely alter the resolution by adding such things like "oh btw, i meant they should only not be allowed when the person is just verbally refusing, I think it's ok if they're violently refusing." This makes it impossible for me to debate since you can just suddenly decide you agree with whatever i say and make that your resolution. I am debating the resolution that was posted as this topic, if you'd like to edit it further or add more details i suggest you do so in a different debate.

You may not care about the definition of such things as a vehicle, but seriously you should not just blow off my arguments saying that you don't care and it's a tangent. These things lose you rounds in an actual debate, because the definitions of the words in the resolution can be disputed. I think your resolution itself is debatable, but you chose to avoid my arguments by simply altering the resolution and changing it. I'd say this is pretty illegitimate considering you waste my time by changing our debate topic.

In other words, you have agreed to my arguments, which clearly contradict the resolution, meaning that the judge should vote con.

Alright moving on to answering some things you said.
Once again you propose no other viable alternatives besides lifting the person out of the vehicle, or the vehicle. You say that this would be a better alternative to some large jolt of electricity, but you haven't given me any reasons why tasering itself is actually worse than lifting. Lifting also poses the risk of injury of the individual, especially if that individual continues to resist. Tasering on the other hand immediately subdues the individual, lowering the possibility of further injury. Tasering also does not lead to death in the majority of cases, which is why the police use tasers when possible instead of guns obviously.

Tasering is also an effective way of deterring further resistance of the police, in other words, further increasing the control the state has over the people (please don't start reading foucalt on me lol,) and reducing the crime rate. Imagine a scenario where a criminal is just forced out of the car by lifting. What's to say he won't just refuse again and again? We need a suitable punishment to show the people that they cannot avoid the authority of the government or justice, otherwise you justify anarchy, which i can also debate you about if you insist, but that seems to be "a tangent, so stop wasting my time :P."

Backup, it will increase the risk of tasering. You have an individual refusing to come out the vehicle and you call for backup. great, now there'll be more cops just wondering how to get the individual out of the vehicle. I don't think your "more the merrier" philosophy applies here. tasering is inevitable in these cases, and your alternatives cannnot solve for the problems you have posed, my impacts outweigh yours, and that's a reason to vote con.

You have also completely blown off my evidence about the effectiveness about electrical weapons such as tasers and railguns, saying they're for the navy. i'll take this as saying that you conceed my argument about the effectiveness of tasers. fantastic.

Since you are proposing a plan (enstating a piece of legislature to make tasering in your cases illegal,) I believe it is appropriate for me to propose a counterplan, which if proven to be better than the plan, should be a reason to vote con.
Counterplan text: The president of the United States should do the plan, avoiding normal means through an executive order.

If I can prove that this counterplan solves better of solves for something external of the impacts you have described, that means you prefer the counterplan and I have won the debate.
Executive orders boost presidential powers, which are key to solving many issues such as global warming, terror, and trade wars. I can give you many other examples of what it solves, i'll include evidence if you ask, but i get the feeling that you'll just say something like "i don't care about your counterplan, stop wasting my time, etc"

Underview:
You have seriously impaired my ability to debate with you by altering the resolution. I urge the judge to vote con right here for making this debate unfair and impossible for the con.

You have conceded that tasers are effective and your alternative methods fail, I have defeated you on your case, or the substantive part of this debate, which means the judge should vote con.

I also have a counterplan which solves for all of case and a net benefit of warming, terrorism, and trade wars. You may think this makes no sense, but it does, considering that you are proposing a plan, which means you advocate the plan, and the I as the con can advocate anything that is not the plan. If i prove the counterplan is better than the plan, the judge must vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateHero82

Pro

-As I already stated above I don't care about "acceptance" of an argument or the plan or counterplan or the 'judge' voting con or pro or the "underview" or the resolution. I just joined this site a few weeks ago and am interested in the philosophical reason why people believe something and want to know if they can back up their argument with sound reasoning. I don't care who "wins" rounds.

-You keep saying I changed my original argument. First off, I don't think I did because I say in my original argument the following things

"..if you refuse to get out of a vehicle" and

"Tasers should only be used to protect the police or the public if they are in immediate and direct physical harm (e.g. somebody raising a gun or fist to hit them)" and

"Non violence should not be met with violence"

All of those things suggest the person is not fighting or hitting or shooting the cops.

-You keep saying how lifting somebody out of a vehicle is such a bad option and how tasering is so much better otherwise shooting the person to death is all that is left. You say tasering immediately subudes; lowers the possibilty of further injury, deters further resistance, increases the control of the state, reduces the crime rate, is a suitable punishment and is effective. As I said before it may be the EASIEST option for the cops, but it does not take into the affect on the person receiving the tase. I find it funny how you talk about how lifting somebody up can injure somebody but in the same breath say "...tasering does not lead to death IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES..." That should tell you right there that is is harmful if it has the potential for death (even in the minority of cases) How often has somebody died from getting picked up? Take that and compare it to the number of taser deaths. Then you want to talk about control of the state suitable punishment and all that. Remember, all this person has done is refuse to comply with the cops orders to stand up instead of sit down or move from here to there, it should not be grounds to shock the hell out of them and it is not harmless. As I said in my last round which you have failed to address" "I think if you poll 100 people, most if not all would say they would rather get forcefully lifted up than have 100,000 jolts of electricity forced through their body so a taser is not the least aggressive method." The fact that most people would prefer being lifted should also give credence to the fact that tasering is not the best option. So don't tell me I "....haven't given any reason why tasering itself is actually worse than lifting." There are two reasons you just ignored: it can and has KILLED people and most polled peopled would prefer lifting to tasering. Don't ignore those reasons this time.

-Lifting somebody out of the vehicle is a viable option. What do you think they did before they had tasers? The reason I suggest they call for backup is because some people are heavy and it may require more than one person. Have you ever moved to a new house and had to lift a large object like a couch. It is easier with two people and not just 1, right? Do you understand that? It is called physics. that is why the 'MORE THE MERRIER' It is also good to have more than 1 cop there because if the person resists it is better in case the person does start to hit the cops, they can actually subdue the person and may have to taser them because at that point they care causing physical harm. Even if lifting somebody out of a car usually leave to a physical fight, people have a right to not be shocked until they actually start fighting. That is called serving the people and not controlling the people. It is the job cops signed up for. The might get into physical confrontations. The person did not sign up for that (and are not getting paid) even if they are not listening because that is all they are doing at that point is not listening. As I said before "Non violence should not be met with violence" Just like if somebody was protesting and blocking traffic or an entrance to a building you don't just say "lets tase them because that is is easier than moving them."

-You say I concede the effectiveness of tasers. Sure, they are effective and increase control and deter resistance and are punishment, etc. But using that logic a bullet to the head would be more effective and a bomb even more effective and so on. So it is not simply about the 'EFFECTIVENESS'

-Lastly you go on about a presidential executive order, global warming, and all this other nonsense about legislation that really isn't relevant
dkim

Con

I'm not sure why you're still talking about acceptance....i don't know what that is either. if you'd like to enlighten me, go ahead. It's really hard to debate about the actual philosophy of an action if what you state is extremely vague and you don't specify, which is why i used a definition.

We are debating "Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle," and what you stated in your first speech were your arguments to support your pro view. I guess this misunderstanding is what skewed our debate. Whatever, I'll do my best to argue against what only what you said then, considering you kind of switched your advocacy to become mine.

So we're taking into account a few factors here to determine whether tasers or lifting is a better method. I'll make an analogy for this. A bullet would be the death penalty, a taser would be a jail sentence, and lifting would be letting the individual go. Sure, a bullet is the most effective, as you stated, but it doesn't allow for any flexibility and the individual dies. A taser gives the individual a punishment which is appropriate due to the fact that the individual is defying the government (i'm assuming that this is the case, and not that the government is corrupt, etc) which is unacceptable in today's society because it spurs anarchy. However once again, if the individual is simply lifted out, what punishment do they get? none. they can simply refuse the next time, and so on. your argument about the poll supports this. more people would want to be lifted, because it's the smallest punishment. The cops need the ability to maintain order and control the people, to prevent further chaos. This outweighs any probability of death tasers may pose, and technological improvements in the future will always help to reduce this rate anyways.

I'm honestly not sure what this lifting is you're talking about. From what I can tell you're having the cops pull the people out of the vehicle. If that person is verbally refusing to come out the vehicle, trying to force someone out of their own car can easily become violent, as people will become provoke when strangers try to grab them out of their own car. a taser on the other hand subdues them immediately, reducing this risk of further escalation. You actually say that they might start a physical fight, then you call this serving the people? how is fighting with a person serving the people.

You say effectiveness doesn't matter, bu sure it does. If a method is the most effective way to stop an action, it should be given much more weight than an alternative that doesn't solve as well. of course it's not the only factor like i have discussed above, but it means that you should still weigh effectiveness as a major part of whether tasers should be allowed.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateHero82

Pro

you said "However once again, if the individual is simply lifted out, what punishment do they get? none.:

I say...
-Punishment is suppose to come after a trial and after somebody has an opportunity to defend themselves. It is not suppose to come on the street corner by the cops.

-The punishment for verbally refusing to listen is the extra charge of resisting arrest or whatever you want to call it with it coming extra jail time.

you say: "f that person is verbally refusing to come out the vehicle, trying to force someone out of their own car can easily become violent, as people will become provoke when strangers try to grab them out of their own car."

I say:
-Even if lifting somebody out of a car usually leads to a physical fight, people have a right to not be shocked until they actually start fighting.

-They are not strangers, they are law enforcement who should have identified themselves first. A hobo on the corner is a stranger

you say: "The cops need the ability to maintain order and control the people, to prevent further chaos.:

I say

-Verbal defiance is not dis order,physical fighting is

you say: If a method is the most effective way to stop an action, it should be given much more weight than an alternative that doesn't solve as well."

I say

-The effectiveness is outweighed by the fact that somebody is violently shocked for doing nothing but being verbally defiant. Lifting somebody may not be as effective, may not be as quick, but it can and should still be done UNTIL the person becomes violent. Lifting may not be AS EFFICIENT, but is still effective. The people deserve that opportunity. Violence or lack thereof factor should be put ahead of effectiveness factor. Get it.

What other points do you have??
dkim

Con

alright so in the case of an innocent simply refusing to get out of there vehicle, they will tried, and probably be issued a minor sentence such as a fine, or a short time in jail depending on the situation. However, what's to say this is enough to prevent them from doing the crime again? There have been many repeat offenders that have repeatedly gone to jail for small crimes again and again. However, one deterrent that has been empirically proven exists. pain. It is human nature to want to avoid pain, and pain has been proven to be effective in many cases. Pain is used in the training of animals also, and it is a great teacher at times. Therefore, tasers are much more effective, and besides, after the tasing, they will also receive the jail sentence or fine, which is the most appropriate punishment to ensure deterrence.

i don't understand what you mean when you say "people have a right not to be shocked." you don't control when you're shocked or not, and it's not a right. if you'd clarify on that it would be helpful, instead of repeating it again. and yes, it does usually lead to violence.

You say they aren't strangers, so are you telling me that you are friends or even acquaintances with every cop you might ever meet? Simply because you know what their position or who they are in general is doesn't matter. addressing your hobo example, you have just addressed them as hobos. you know they are hobos therefore they aren't strangers either according to your logic. This stranger thing isn't that important anyways, it's just to prove the point that people will usually resist and be violent when being forced out of their vehicle, but you have agreed with me here, so it's fine.

The cops need the ability to have authority over the people. If they cannot show the people their power, the people will rebel or begin to take them lightly, which leads to disorder and chaos. i'm not saying verbal defiance itself is necessarily disorder, though it can be, i'm saying that this verbal disobedience justified and leads to further chaos, which includes physical fighting. You have also agreed that your own alternative of lifting leads to physical fighting usually, so i don't see what you're trying to say here.

Once again, you try to make verbal defiance seem petty, but it's not. If a cop has a reasonable reason for suspecting you and ordering you to pull over and get out of a vehicle, that is legal. refusing to do so is a crime, and will just make them suspect you even more. Lifting is not effective because once again, it doesn't provide the pain and the punishment that tasering does. This is clearly outweighs any kind of shock you receive, because that shock is a good thing. it is a punishment for defying the authorities, and it is well deserved. it's a good thing, so i don't see how you're trying to use it as an argument against me.

Basically, defying the authorities is an act that cannot be tolerated because of it's consequences which outweigh any negative points you might talk about such as this "opportunity" they should get.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateHero82

Pro

-Punishment is suppose to come after a trial and after somebody has an opportunity to defend themselves. It is not suppose to come on the street corner by the cops. Pain should not be punishment in a civil society. If we need to increase the penalty for not getting out of a vehicle then let's do that, but that is a separate issue
dkim

Con

A cop's judgement in an immediate situation is an appropriate trial. In a situation like the refusal to exit the vehicle, there is no time to get a trial on the spot. lifting by itself is a punishment, so this argument doesn't make sense. this argument about a civil society makes no sense. We use pain as a punishment all the time, and pain is not a bad thing all the time. How did we learn not to touch a hot stove? or not to touch a cactus? pain. pain is a necessary part of life to our survival and society. you make a timeframe argument that we should punish them later, but this is irrelevant because you're suggesting that we lift them out, which is a punishment by itself, yet not an effective one. what's the use of an ineffective punishment? we need to prevent future defiance by showing authority over the people, so it's really not a separate issue. thanks
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
I'm pleasantly refreshed to hear you accept the criticism with such grace. I know you were trying to win based on semantics for the first couple rounds, but I think you took it a bit far with that one lol. I think, seeing as how you're both on your first debates, you should've maybe just focused on having a good discussion rather than trying to "win", but that's just me. I enjoy this site because of the engaging conversations a good debate can kindle, not to win arguments (although the latter is also nice as long as it's not at the expense of the former).
Posted by dkim 4 years ago
dkim
yeah it was pretty dumb, but it wasn't a serious debate either, considering i was debating what my opponent was actually arguing for the first speeches....
Posted by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
"By this definition humans are vehicles, as they transport matter and also our "souls." It is physically impossible for ourselves to get out of our body, perhaps with the exception of death, which means that the resolution already is forced to either kill people, which is worse then tasering, or make exceptions, which is a reason that the judge should vote con against the resolution."

WHAT THE FU( K???
This might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on a serious debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DouggyFresh 4 years ago
DouggyFresh
DebateHero82dkimTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Con got too tied up with trying to "win" the debate through "clever" word games, and did not spend enough energy actually thinking about the true issue. This kind of debate pisses me off, because I'll read one person's arguments, and look forward to the rebuttal. Then instead, all I see is a bunch of sh!t being spewed all over my screen. Con had better s/g. Neither used any sources in a way that supported their argument. Tsk tsk dkim.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
DebateHero82dkimTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: "A cop's judgement in an immediate situation is an appropriate trial. " NO CON! BAD! You were doing so well until you talked about how a cop can do a makeshift trial and the taser is the punishment...Pro takes arguments because he focused on the issue much better in the last half, con gets two points because he was wrecking in the first two rounds