The Instigator
cbob31
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Varrack
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Police Brutality

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 5 votes the winner is...
Varrack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 76068
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

cbob31

Pro

If a white, black, green, or yellow person breaks the law and then resists arrest they might get killed or injured.
Varrack

Con

I accept. To observe, Pro has begun this debate with the resolution "Police Brutality", which pertains to the absolute. Pro isn't supposed to defend some instances of police brutality, but rather all. If I can successfully show at least one instance in which police brutality is wrong or unjust, then the resolution is negated.

First, we must note that Pro states in the opening round that if a person breaks the law and then resists they might be injured or killed. Obviously yes, but this is a complete generalization of brutality cases. In some instances, police have shot citizens who were not resisting or were not deserving of being shot. We must also note that if a police shooting is justified, then the case isn't an example of brutality. "Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose." [http://www.encyclopedia.com...] For my opponent to defend brutality when it is defined as something that is unnecessary or unjust is an untenable position. This is contradictory to the nature of brutality and is an attempt to justify what is unjustifiable.

Examples

- Frank Jude and his friend Love Harris were assaulted by police officers in Milwaukee in 2004. The two were leaving a party when attacked by off-duty cops because they claimed the two had stolen one of their police badges. Harris' face was cut with a knife while Jude was repeatedly punched, kicked, stabbed in the head with a pen, and was stomped. [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...]

- Rodney King was chased in his car by the L.A.P.D. for 8 miles until being stopped and ordered to move out of his vehicle. He did so, resisted arrest, and was then tazed and beaten with a baton while being kicked repeatedly on the ground. This happened in 1992. [http://www.biography.com...]

- Amadou Diallo, an immigrant from Guinea, was shot in his apartment building by the N.Y.P.D. in 1999. They thought he had a gun, but was actually unarmed and had reached into his pocket for a wallet when he was killed. [http://www.nytimes.com...]

Police brutality is, by definition, unnecessary and unjust. I find it shocking that Pro would support such a heinous thing. Nevertheless, the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
cbob31

Pro

cbob31 forfeited this round.
Varrack

Con

You better run.
Debate Round No. 2
cbob31

Pro

cbob31 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
cbob31

Pro

cbob31 forfeited this round.
Varrack

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SummerLover19 1 year ago
SummerLover19
Could somebody vote on this debate? It's on legalizing prostitution.http://www.debate.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
cbob31VarrackTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the entire debate. Con provided an arguments backed up with sources.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 1 year ago
birdlandmemories
cbob31VarrackTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by pro, con was the only one to post arguments and use sources.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
cbob31VarrackTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by SummerLover19 1 year ago
SummerLover19
cbob31VarrackTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: DDO users really shouldn't be on this if they challenge somebody to a debate and never go through with it. This is exactly what Pro did. Con provided sources, and examples on why police brutality is wrong.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
cbob31VarrackTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the entire debate, so conduct to Con. Pro made no arguments, simply stated what their opinion was, whereas Con made a solid argument, which was not refuted by Pro at all, due to their forfeiting the rest of the debate. Sources were only used by Con.