The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
darris321
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

It is OK to snitch

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 6 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,908 times Debate No: 18951
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Some people think that telling the police what happened is bad also know as snitching.
Definition: When somebody runs to the police or somebody of authority to turn in somebody.

What is wrong with informing the police about crimes? What is wrong with that.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...
darris321

Con

The police do not work for the people. The police work for the state.
When the police inform you of your Miranda rights, they tell you that everything you say can be used against you in a court of law. This is because the police are not allowed to use the statements to SUPPORT you. The statements you give them can ONLY be used against you because the police are representatives of the state, and cannot help the defense. Since the police cannot work on the side of the defense, it is not okay to tell them of nonserious "crimes". Their job is to detain and fine people, not to look at the facts and decide it's not worth it- even if they do have that power.

The definition by the instigator includes the phrase "Turning in somebody for something SERIOUS does NOT count as snitching." That is to say, snitching is ONLY telling the police about crimes that are not serious. Crimes that have no victim. If you run a red light, but you didn't get hit, why should someone tell on you? You may have been being responsible. You may have just thought the light was just holding you up because no one was coming.
Or how about another scenario. One with no victim.
If X decides to smoke a little weed, and Y tells on him, it is not okay to snitch. Smoking weed has no victims. Nobody is hurt. It is the right of X to do whatever he wants without being harassed by the police so long as he doesn't harm anyone else.

It is for these and other reasons that I believe it is not okay to snitch.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. What the police are able to do is make places safer. Smoking weed is illegal and is thus a crime so the police should be told. As for something as simple as running a red light people can always be left with a warning such as if the car was very close to the light but it still turned red. I also depends on the person who is telling the police. Are they OK with someone running red and also what is wrong with waiting some seconds before the light turns green.
darris321

Con

My opponent makes a logical leap from "smoking weed is a crime" to "the police should be told". Is my opponent suggesting that in all cases, the police should be informed of a crime?
Is my opponent suggesting that laws are infallible? In the holocaust, the Jews were rounded up and put into work camps, is it the opinion of my opponent that the citizen should inform the police of where the Jews are? That is an extreme example, but I feel that it still accurately portrays the argument that my opponent is putting forth.

"what is wrong with waiting some seconds before the light turns green"
That is a totally irrelevant question. The question at hand is whether or not it is okay to snitch, not whether or not it is okay to commit an offense which is potentially worthy of snitching.

Police are able to make places safer by focusing on crimes that actually matter. I direct the voters' attention to my opponent's definition again wherein it states that informing the police of a serious crime does not count as snitching.
The police make the streets safer from rape, perhaps, however, when the police are saturating an area to look for a rapist and the snitch comes up to tell them someone ran a red light, the snitch is actively derailing safety from being achieved.
Every second that is spent on the cop listening to a crime which by it's very definition is not serious is a second spent not catching serious criminals.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

My opponent first started with the example of the holocaust. I have already stated that it is the snitch's decision. They can make the decision if they want to turn in the Jews or not. In the case of the holocaust the people were brainwashed into thinking Jews were bad.

You were saying that a person may be OK with going through a red light because there is no traffic. Now I asked in response to you why can't people just wait seconds for it to turn green. Something as simple as stopping at a red light is not that hard. When you do go through the red sometimes you may not be harming someone but sometimes you do hurt someone. Then a snitch tells the police. Would every car accident be considered major? What if X rammed into A and A also received minor injuries such as a fractured finger which could only need to be bandaged. Can't you tell the police a crash happened and it is blocking traffic? That can without an injury but it is important that someone tells the police so the police know to assist in moving the cars.

What if someone stole a wallet that ONLY filled with money. Someone just lost their money and if someone has evidence of who did then it should be informed to by the police. Even stopping the simplest of crimes as well as serious ones can make the world a lot safer.
darris321

Con

Yes, my opponent has stated that it is the snitch's decision... however, that's not the point of my observation. The point is that turning in the Jews in that situation would be NOT okay. Snitching in that situation would be NOT okay, which is the pertinent question of the debate.

My opponent has failed to understand the nature of his own debate. The question "why can't people just wait for it to turn green" is entirely irrelevant to whether or not "it is okay to snitch".
The simplicity of stopping at a red light is irrelevant. Should we listen to the letter of the law even when the spirit is different. Stop lights are to avoid colissions. The law wasn't made because a bunch of people decided there should be periodic stops, it was made so people would be safer and so traffic would flow better. When there is no one around, and a person runs a red light, it doesn't affect their safety and it doesn't affect traffic flow. It doesn't violate the spirit of the law, only the letter. Since it doesn't violate the point of the law, it is silly in that case to snitch on someone.

Pro goes on to say "you may not be harming someone but sometimes you do hurt someone". I would direct the voters' attention to the definition, yet again. Informing the police is not always snitching. It is only snitching when it is not serious. If running a red light causes someone harm, it is no longer "not serious", so in that case, it would not be snitching.
It is also very likely that X or A would tell the police, but even if they did not, moving cars so traffic could flow would also be a serious matter. Snitches only exist when the matter at hand is inmaterial and not serious, as in life would go on and no one would know any different whether the snitch snitched or not.

Stealing money is serious too. That is monetary injury. However, if we pretend that it isn't serious, do you think that the victim would not call the police?

I ask the voters' to look at what pro has proven. Pro has the burden of proof in this matter and has failed to prove that snitching is okay. I have provided situations in which I showed that snitching is not okay. The very definition of snitching implies that it isn't okay. If it isn't serious, it doesn't require people to tell the police. The non-serious example provided in the urbandictionary definition was running a red light. This situation has no injury.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by treyday 3 years ago
treyday
Brett Gyllenskog : Drug dealer that snitches on other drug dealers.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
very close!
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Yes I won!
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Well that is your opinion and these are the reasons why the debaters cannot vote. The burden of proof is that: Snitching good, not snitching bad.
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
You are winning by votes. However, you lost the debate because you failed to meet your burden of proof.
Socializing has nothing to do with who wins.
Providing evidence is just a method to meet the burden of proof, which you did not.
The fact that other people are voting for you doesn't mean you win, it means you win according to the votes.
I don't contest you may win by popular vote, but by fact, you lose because you didn't prove what you were trying to.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
I am winning! More people seem to agree with me. There is more to debates than burden proof including exchange of ideas, providing evidence, and socializing with others. You cannot just say I lost. Other people should decide and others have fairly.
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
There is absolutely no more to debates than the burden of proof.
You're trying to prove something.
If you fail to meet your burden of proof, you've failed to prove it.
i.e. you lost.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
There is more to debates than the burden of proof!
Posted by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
Vote con!
Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Vote pro!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
1Historygeniusdarris321Tied
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: Pro did not provide adequate definitions of snitching which Con used to his advantage. Con was able to prove that it isn't okay to snitch on non-serious crimes due to the fact that the police don't work for the defendent, it wastes time, and is not appropriate in all situations. His whole argument is unfeasible but Pro could neither refute it, nor build a case of his own.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
1Historygeniusdarris321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued it was okay for the informant to decide whether to inform the police or not. Pro cited cases where it was not okay. The debate hinges on whether the resolution means "always okay" or "sometimes okay." I'll go with Pro based upon the initial statement of the resolution. Con's argument that the police work for the state and not the people was wrong, because it implies that murderers et al ought never be identified.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
1Historygeniusdarris321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate. Pro had some points that con did not refute.
Vote Placed by tjordan 5 years ago
tjordan
1Historygeniusdarris321Tied
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: Pro really did not provide any arguments as to why it is okay to snitch. Con wins.
Vote Placed by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
1Historygeniusdarris321Tied
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: Solid rebuttals from Con, Pro failed to fulfill BoP
Vote Placed by Akemi_Loli_Mokoto 5 years ago
Akemi_Loli_Mokoto
1Historygeniusdarris321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro. He has solid logic and that I can vote for. Good job mate.