Darren Wilson is justified in shooting Michael Brown
Debate Rounds (4)
The Second round will be arguments. My argument will be in the form of an article. You will read it and respond to it in the third round, witch will be rebuttals. I will respond to your argument in the third round as well.
The fourth round will be conclusions. We will also say what we learned about the other side of the argument.
I accept Darren Wilson was justified in the case of Michael Brown.
I believe Con is arguing what I should be arguing. The debate states that Darren Wilson is justified in shooting Michael Brown, and she chose Con, meaning it isn't justified.
How was that
"I don't care what the DOJ or forensic evidence says. I made up my mind and I'm not changing it. I dont care about facts only about a political agenda. I don't care if a man in St. Louis is hammered to death or if two nypd officers are shot as revenge for brown"
Pro simply has typed something, which doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't even say who it is talking about.
Ill just start with my case
Brown had robbed a bank prior to the shooting.
Brown had gone to a convience store, to steal cigarettes. So the argument that he was completely innocent cannot be atributed to
The actual incident
While we was escaping, Darren Wilson managed to find them, and ordered them to stay on the sidewalk. This is when Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson. So since Michael Brown attacked him first, he had all the rights to take action. Michael Brown then ran away, and that was when Wilson had to shoot.
The DOJ report shows that browns blood was on wisdoms car, gun and uniform . Brown had a close range shot in his palm. This all supports Wilson's claim that brown, who was a violent criminal, had reached into his car and tried to grab his gun. Brown also had gun res on his shirt.
Brown was shot in the top of the arm from a distance. This is when brown was charting Wilson after he had run away. If brown had his hands up and he was shot how could he be shot in the top of the arm? If his hands were up in a surrender position his palms and the bottom of his arms would be facing Wilson, not the tops of his arms.
Physical evidence and common sense shows that Wilson shot Michael Brown the criminal our of self defense.
So far my opponent failed to prove that Darren Wilson wasnt justified in killing Michael Brown.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con chose the wrong position, tried to correct it, but then began arguing for the Pro side...which means she was going against her position. Thus, this is a concession, meaning I am forced to give the arguments point to Pro..
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.