The Instigator
Dilara
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tajshar2k
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Darren Wilson is justified in shooting Michael Brown

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...
tajshar2k
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 721 times Debate No: 74958
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Dilara

Con

The First round is acceptance.
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.
Thanks!
tajshar2k

Pro

I accept Darren Wilson was justified in the case of Michael Brown.
Debate Round No. 1
Dilara

Con

I believe that Wilson was justified in shooting brown. The article is called "hands up don't shoot was built on a lie" and is by Jonathan capehart. It is in the Washington post.
tajshar2k

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Dilara

Con

"This sweet little boy was an angle. Assaulting store clerks and cops, robbing stores, trying to take cops guns, charging cops...it's ok"
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"
tajshar2k

Pro

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...




Debate Round No. 3
Dilara

Con

I rest my case. All the witnesses who claimed brown had his hands up when he was shot were deemed un-trustworthy by the DOJ as their stories changed several times and were not supported by physical evidence. Dorion Jonson who has recently been arrested for drug charges originally told us that brown was shot in the back. When three of browns autopsy reports showed that all the shots entered browns body through the front Jonson changed his story. Remember Johnson helped brown steel the cigars before the incident. Even with out the physical evidence that I am about to give one should automatically believe the cop who has had no disciplinary record over the criminal who lied to police. It makes sense that the two men would attack the cop rather than the cop attacking them considering that minutes before the incident the two men assaulted a store clerk and stole cigars and the cop had no disciplinary charges.
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.
tajshar2k

Pro

So far my opponent failed to prove that Darren Wilson wasnt justified in killing Michael Brown.

Vote Pro

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Ok. I'll pretend to be al sharpton
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Sure I guess.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
I support Wilson. Oh well. I can pretend to be one of the black lives matter jokers who ignore facts and think Wilson is guilty in the Next round if you want.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Wait? You mean you support Darren WIlson? You should have been Pro then. What r u going to debate then.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
You playing devils advocate Dilara, or did someone still your account?
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
Darn
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
Wait, Dilara I thought you were Pro on this issue?
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
I think you meant to be Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Dilaratajshar2kTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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..