The Instigator
StephenP
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KGlife
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

President Duterte's plans for the Philippines are justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/19/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 106890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

StephenP

Pro

The recent administration under Presidente Duterte has become the best in History. Being a Filipino myself, I am all for the President's plan. National peace and order are very important because it can take a country to its economic peak. I know that I would not have the best country with total peace at all, but I will have it here in the Philippines. People who oppose the President's plan which for them is for the loss and fall of my country do not know how advantageous those can be. It is true that questions and doubts will always be there but we are free to our best right as a citizen.
KGlife

Con

For the purpose of preventing everyday people from adopting Duterte-like ideals, I accept the challenge. I will argue that Duterte is a monstrous figure, and that his ideas do not belong in present society. His terrible administration should thereby earn him a legacy that ought to be looked down on.

The idea that drug addicts deserve a death sentence removed from any form of justice will be the main aspect I will debate against.
Debate Round No. 1
StephenP

Pro

In your aspect of 'death sentence removed from any form of justice' is definitely invalid to me and to our nation. Remember we have October 10 in 2015 which is the World Day Against the Death Penalty where the world speaks out together to condemn this punishment for it is just such of a brutal sanction violating the right to life. Pull us out with your list of 32 countries imposing this death penalty for drug smugglers. Of course, in the due process of law, legal and capital punishments are allowed for certain drug offenses (mostly practiced in several countries) which includes DEATH. Some others will have mandatory death sentence perhaps depending on the depth of the offense the crime carries.

I mean this simply, the offenders when caught and brought to court for decisions, they still get their rights and so, their justice. You may want to argue and have your white coat taken off and search for criminals undoubtedly fighting for their lives on this divisive issue.
KGlife

Con

Uh... I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. When drug users are brought to trial, they receive due justice? Is that what you're saying? Either that or you're making the point that certain criminals involved in drug empires deserve a death sentence. The way you phrased your argument is quite hard to interpret, so please clarify, Pro.

Anyways, throughout this debate, I will illustrate why Duterte's plans for the Philippines are ineffective, immoral and unjustified.

So, let's start off with a study of the actual drug use in the Philippines. UNODC; the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime studied this, and concluded that the Philippines had a low prevalence rate of drug users compared to the global average. Hence, we can debunk the idea that the Philippines has outlandishly high drug rates.

Therefore, my opponent is limited to 2 broad arguments. He must either make the case that all drug users in nations above a certain average of drug usage ought to be killed, or that all drug users ought to be killed. My opponent cannot also make the case that only particular drug users ought to be killed, as Duterte himself did not specify as such. He non-specifically called for the killing of any and all drug users.

"Of course, in the due process of law, legal and capital punishments are allowed for certain drug offenses (mostly practiced in several countries) which includes DEATH."

Due process of law, eh? Alright, for the sake of this argument, let's pretend that it is now objectively moral to kill people we know use drugs. So, anyone that uses cannabis or crack or any other illegal drug are now moral to kill. Well, even if we assume this, my opponent's argument still holds no water. Duterte called for the killings of all 'Suspected' drug users and criminals as well. In what sense is this a due process of the law, Pro?

A due process suggests a comprehensive study of a crime scene, a court case, trial etc. According to my opponent, going out with a gun and shooting someone who you think is probably a drug user is now a due process. Not only is no actual evidence required to carry out a killing, but cops receive monetary incentives to do so.

"According to the interviews and an unpublished report an intelligence officer shared with Reuters, the police are paid about 10,000 pesos ($200) for each killing of a drug suspect as well as other accused criminals. The monetary awards for each killing are alleged to rise to 20,000 pesos ($400) for a street pusher, 50,000 pesos ($990) for a member of a neighborhood council, one million pesos ($20,000) for distributors, retailers, and wholesalers, and five million ($100,000) for 'drug lords.'"

This means that the police are rewarded for taking part in these murders. Let's create a scenario, where a poor, low-income police officer gets an idea. This officer is struggling to put food on the table. But what's this? Now they can kill a drug user and earn some money in the process.

Unfortunately, in this situation, this officer simply goes to a shady area, shoots someone and makes a claim that they were smoking an illegal substance. Now, he/she is $200 richer. If said officer shoots five people a day, they can be making $1,000. This is supposedly all justified in an attempt to stop drug violence: By creating more violence than there ever was in the first place.

To make the situation even worse, cops are not the only ones who have permission to do this. Everyday people, self-appointed vigilantes, have authority to kill, without any evidence of the victim having been a drug user. This is not a just and due process of the law; this is indefensible. There should never be a situation where a citizen should have an obligation to another citizen.

Filipino authorities confirm that 3,968 people have been killed by the police, while the Human Rights Watch has claimed that a total 13,000 people have been killed under the guise of the war on drugs policy. This is a frightening amount of people, and is absolutely unjustifiable.

Even if this policy was 100% accurate, the killing of individuals for the use of drugs is ethically wrong. Who is Duterte, or anyone else, to declare that drug users deserve to die? Hence, due to this belief, it is up to my opponent to justify the killing of drug users and addicts.

Hopefully, this argument convinces readers why Duterte's actions are completely wrong on many, many levels.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.brookings.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
StephenP

Pro

You have literally taken my words and phrases and understood them letter by letter, Con.

"When drug users are brought to trial, they receive due justice?" Big yes! It is always understood mate especially in district courts which handle civil and criminal cases, that the magistrate judges may oversee certain cases, issue search and arrest warrants, conduct hearings, etc... By this, those persons on trial received due process of law which is right just deserved by every citizen. This also simply relates to your response to the 5th " 6th paragraphs. Well, didn"t I ever specified "suspected" people fighting back to the police and armies undergo the said due process? This makes it even funnier, Con. Put this situation in your shoes. You are tasked to maintain peace and order to your assigned site, somehow someone has been very naughty and you ask him to be still. Yet he insisted and put the gun directed to you, what should you do? Of course, as armed you should fire back - unless you wanna be a hero at your stake. This comes with more cases on the "innocents", shall I call it, who repulse being arrested by police. If they were not drug-users why not?

I"ll comment on your "study of the actual drug use" why focused on these studies? Have you been in the Philippines, Con? Now, you should be. You might not find it very rampant but our PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) estimated 4.7 M dug personalities involved in the country which shouldn"t be weighted against the global average but locally. "He non-specifically called for the killing of any and all drug users" " should you have more research who our President is, what will be his plans and what are those for.

And with your gratuities or money-tipped police, where are your concrete stands on it. Polices here are in their normal duty and once they have excelled in things they usually do, awards and appreciations are given not even a penny, aside from their wages, they will receive. So why quote these payments brought by an intelligent officer, if he/she is an intellect, this police, and armed government officials were captured and put in jail this time. I believe in our strong and just government here. In very amenable and impress by the cited example, Con but let"s put the boat on the Dead Sea. By making reference to a non-official and unreliable source, you end up with a good point wrapping along a futile cargo of fabrications.

I concede with the extra-judicial killings, but most involved people were proven positive in drugs not counting the behind-persons on huge caffeine there are. I know the HRW will always follow these apprehensive events for claims and I know that UN has created an independent investigation to determine irresponsibility and ensure accountabilities on these deaths, but nothing was proved and concluded "til now. By this, all rumors, hearsays, and searches from unreliable sources were invalid and all recent actions in the Philippines were justified.
KGlife

Con

My opponent is making quite the baseless argument, while proceeding to make statements that justify things that really cannot be proven.

"Most involved people were proven positive in drugs not counting the behind-persons on huge caffeine there are."

Even if we go by what you say (which you haven't proven) pro is apparently okay with at least some innocents being gunned down for the greater good. Unfortunately, this contradicts the idea that my opponent cares about innocent life. He claims he wants to protect it by killing all of the drug users, but is fine with at least a few innocents being killed in the process; for most is not all. The obvious reality, is that calling for the killing of the vague idea of 'Drug users' without a trial goes against the very idea of democracy. If you support that, you cannot claim you support a just system. If you accept that some innocents will be killed without a trial because they might be drug users, you are objective against democracy in that sense.

" You might not find it very rampant but our PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) estimated 4.7 M dug personalities involved in the country"

Alright, 4.7 million, let's take a look at that. If we do some very basic math, we can find the percentage that is on the total population. 0.05%. Look out everyone, 0.05% of Filipinos are drug personalities! I really hope that my opponent can take this number into perspective. You are simply lying to yourself if you think this is a huge threat to the well-being of the Philippines.

"Polices here are in their normal duty and once they have excelled in things they usually do, awards and appreciations are given not even a penny, aside from their wages, they will receive. So why quote these payments brought by an intelligent officer, if he/she is an intellect, this police, and armed government officials were captured and put in jail this time."

That's not true though. As I mentioned previously, these police officers (and vigilantes) are given monetary incentive to carry out killings. It is in their financial interest to kill as many people as possible. This gives them a reason to kill based on gut instincts, which just leads to more innocent death.

"why focused on these studies? Have you been in the Philippines, Con? Now, you should be."

I don't need to go to the Philippines to read statistics. Any one person can draw a conclusion from anything anywhere, if they're at the right place at the right time. I thought this was basic knowledge, but I suppose not. Statistics paint a clearer picture of reality than individual experiences.

Anyways, I stated most of my argument in the first round, so I'm gonna conclude here. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by StephenP 1 month ago
StephenP
From the topic itself, it says 'Legalization'. By status, it means responsible adults may legally obtain, use and have a particular drug considering the restrictions on the place, time and the manner. Basically, legal does not mean not a principle, a rule or a designed to control this respective conduct or simply, unregulated. You may not wonder why most supporters of this legalization agree for some drug regulation and control.

You can add and consider gasoline as an extremely dangerous substance which in some way cause severe health problems or even death if inhaled - as it's explosive. Yet, it is a legal substance and some responsible adults may obtain, use and have it but don't forget it is always subject to control and regulation such as it's just sold by licensed dealers and regulations on how to properly use it, container-type used, etc.
Posted by KGlife 1 month ago
KGlife
So are you doing a devil's advocate thing here, because your profile says you're in favor of drug legalization.
No votes have been placed for this debate.