The Instigator
crawford93085
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,425 times Debate No: 5577
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

crawford93085

Pro

I am just wanting input on Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation. What are some pros and cons? What about costs? What are some savings? Overages? Would it help with emergencies? Or make it worse? Should tasks be duplicated? Or create chaos? What about training, control of evidence, administrative functions? Effective or non-effective?
beem0r

Con

My opponent seems to not have an argument right now, and since this is a 5-round debate, I will simply state some of my points as a list rather than making lengthy arguments.
To be clear, I am arguing that Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation is bad [since I am CON].

Agencies should do one thing, and do it well.
Not consolidating minimizes confusion.
Not consolidating makes agencies simpler to manage.
Not consolidating makes the agencies very modular. If one agency needs to increase in size, decrease in size, or disband, none of the other agencies are affected.
Not consolidating makes pinpointing blame for mistakes much easier.

Since this is 5 rounds, that's all I'll do for now.
Debate Round No. 1
crawford93085

Pro

crawford93085 forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

Since my opponent made no arguments against my claims and there are three more rounds to come, I will wait until next round to expand upon my individual points, if I do indeed decide to do that. The point remains that my opponent has not brought up points against mine, he has only asked questions.
Debate Round No. 2
crawford93085

Pro

crawford93085 forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

When you make a commitment, stay true to it until the end. That's one of my rules.

Anyway, my points still stand, and I don't feel the need to expand on them with no opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
crawford93085

Pro

crawford93085 forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

Repost of a repost. My points still stand, my opponents points are nil, since he didn't defend his points or attack mine.

Now I will let my opponent make closing arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
crawford93085

Pro

crawford93085 forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

See the other rounds. I am sorry that my opponent was a no-show, but that's just how it goes, I guess. Obvious vote is obvious. I wish this would have developed into a real debate, but there is no sense spending time on elaborate arguments when my opponent brings no opposition.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
: "He's here to learn"
More like he's just not here, regardless of his initial intent.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
>I am just wanting input on Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation.

He isn't here to argue, he's here to learn. Granted, this is probably the worst place on the internet to pose questions of ANY kind just for the sake of asking...
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
My points were in R1. I gave a few reasons why consolidation was not a good idea [consolidation causes confusion, etc]. I didn't bother expanding on my points because my opponent didn't assert any points of his own.

And I think it's quite valid to criticize someone for starting something and then not following through. Especially on this site - if you forfeit all your chances to make points [which my opponent did, since he didn't make points in R1], then you cannot expect to win. Since my opponent made no points, all I have to do in order to win is assert one point. I don't even have to back it up with evidence/testimony/reasoning, since one poorly backed point automatically beats zero points.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
>When you make a commitment, stay true to it until the end. That's one of my rules.

Was that a criticism of the OP? If so, it was completely unnecessary. And if those are all your points, then this "debate," and therefore your commitment, is already at an end.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
crawford93085beem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
crawford93085beem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07