The Instigator
SongHaGin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheResistance
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 82318
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

SongHaGin

Pro

First round is acceptance.
No sources allowed in this debate.
TheResistance

Con

Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole.

Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy.
When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory.
Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much.
A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise.
Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation.
Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies.

So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today.

`TheResistance
Debate Round No. 1
SongHaGin

Pro

FIRST ROUND WAS ACCEPTANCE.
1. Body cameras can help an investigation.
First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault.
Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.
TheResistance

Con

Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case.

Value:
She has no value what so ever, which adds on.

Contention 1: "Body cameras can help an investigation"
As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, "Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies."
As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer.

Let's look at her next contention:"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie."
Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony.

So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras.

So by what's obvious today, vote Con!

`TheResistance
Debate Round No. 2
SongHaGin

Pro

You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered.
You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more!
Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement.
By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie.
Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all.
It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts!
My opponent verges on strawmanning.

I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.
TheResistance

Con

Let's look at your rebuttals.
"My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered."
Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values.

"You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more!
Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement."
1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN!
2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas.
3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue.
4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided.

"By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie."
1. I never said that people don't lie.
2. It states in the witness oath, "I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath?

My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie.

So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today.

~TheResistance
Debate Round No. 3
SongHaGin

Pro

1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that.
2. There's already a fund for the body cameras.
3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie.
4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game.
5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?
I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.
TheResistance

Con

Let's look at your rebuttals.
"2. There's already a fund for the body cameras."
Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras.
"3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie."
Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints.
"4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game."
The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov.
"5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?"
The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them.

I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today.

~TheResistance
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SongHaGin 1 year ago
SongHaGin
I appreciate you ignoring number one, I had a really traumatic experience involving logical fallacies and I appreciate you understanding.
No votes have been placed for this debate.