The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: Darren Wilson was doing his police duty in Ferguson.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,080 times Debate No: 60582
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (1)




This debate is about wheater or not Darren Wilson (the cop who shot Brown in Ferguson) was doing his job or was just racist.


1st Round- Pro's intro and Con will begin his arguments.

2nd Round- is Contention's and arguments

Round 3- Pro's Rebuttles and Con will make his rebuttles and conclusion

Round 4- Pro makes his rebuttles and conclusion while Con will only post "No round as Agreed Upon"

If any other word(s) are inserted in that last round then it's an automatic Forfeiture by my opponent.

No Semantics.

No Trolling


Well I take it I'll be defending the cop.

As far as we know, the young, colored teenager was unarmed, and innocent when he was shot. We all immediately go against the cop, accusing him of performing a racist act because he's a white guy shooting a black kid. But was the the kid really innocent? How do we know he wasn't high, or had a weapon in his pocket? For all we know he could have been on a rampage and all the press wants us to know is that a white cop shot a black kid.

It is known that he stole a box of cigarettes earlier that fateful day. To add to the list, the security footage showed him physically assaulting the employee, which, depending on how bad it was, could be reason for him to get shot. Did he deserve it? Probably not. But he was still guilty. So he still deserved to get punished, but how harshly is still in question.
Debate Round No. 1


The event started when a police dispatch was sent out over the regards of a robbery of a convince store. Here's the link on the robbery by Michael Brown. ( The police office then came across Brown, who attacked him. Wilson walked away with a broken eye bone. ( The police officer then fired 6 shots; 4 hit Brown in the arm while the other 2 struck, and killed him, in the skull. On the 10th, news is released about Brown and Ferguson begins to riot as they attack more than 30 stores across the town and several are arrested. The next day school is cancelled and police used tear gas to break up violent protests. To fuel the thoughts of alleged racism it was released on the 13th, that Brown had no previous criminal record while later that night violence spewed out and the police again fought the protesters. On the 15th, violence escalates as 200 protesters attack police officers with a bombardment of rocks. On Saturday, Governor Nixon issues a state of emergency for the Ferguson region and creates a curfew. It was also revealed that the shots were from the front of Brown which contradicts the eyewitness saying that Brown ran. This past Monday, Governor Nixon orders in the National Guard in as the Police confront a violent crowd with flaming Molotov"s. This morning, Ferguson reported their second peaceful night in a row without violent protests. They also found Michael Brown to have comitted several crimes like Homocide. See here for his complete police record. (

Or what about the unarmed white male that was brutally killed by a black cop. Did that recieve any media attention? No it didn't. (

The media did a great part in inflaming the race war in Ferguson. The eyewitness had reported that Brown had turned and ran from the police officer before he was shot 6 times. This riled up the town which was predominately black. There were even tweets from News Reporters saying that they have passed over dead bodies. ( and ( This only escalated things as there were reports that the extreme left was flocking to the city to only escalate the violence. After news that Brown"s friend was lying and that this investigation was done by an outside party in the nation"s Attorney General. The events, in Ferguson, in the past two days have been quiet as the news of what really happened spread.



Yes, but like I said he got shot long after the robbery. He was shot that evening, the robbery was that afternoon, so he wasn't anywhere near the convenience store when it happened.

If he was innocent, why would the cop shoot shoot him? I'm sure the people of Missouri aren't very racist, so it makes no sense. Besides, racist slurs don't usually consist of shooting, just cussing them out or calling them racist names. If this is an act of racism, then it's a rare occurrence as far as we know.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent brings up a point that Brown was shot long after the robbery, but the robbery happened at 11:51AM and the shooting of Brown occurred at 12:01 PM. That's a total of 10 minutes later which isn't long at all. (

He attacked officer Darren Wilson so he shot him in defense. He even obtained a broken eye bone from the attack by Brown. ( From the chart bellow you can see that Michael Brown was not shot from behind as his eyewitness claimed. This chart is released from the US District Attorney.



Dpowell forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


All points extended. Please vote Pro.


Actually, you shouldn't vote at all. This wasn't a debate, it was a mutual, unknown agreement. I'd like to challenge my opponent to a better debate some time in the future. I have nothing more to say.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
I suggest redoing this one... Perhaps even break it up into multiple debates, as Wilson's guilt/innocence, is unaffected by the merit/fault of the protesters, than there's issues of their human shield tactics...
Posted by kateg1234 2 years ago
This will be my first debate if you choose to accept. I would be willing to debate on the evils of abortion and how it should be illegal.
Posted by Ratcatcher 2 years ago
I'm willing to take you on in any of the following topics, with you on any side!
- Star Wars is a more entertaining movie saga than Star Trek
- Ronald McDonald is a more effective mascot than the Burger King
- Common "Social Acronyms" (lol, ttyl, ikr) are detrimental to society
- Females are more prone to irrationality than Males
- Beef is a more favorable food than Chicken
- Justin Bieber should be deported from the United States

More serious:
- God is non-existent
- Socialism is a more efficient system of government than Capitalism
- "Herbal Remedies" should be favored above Antibiotics
- The benefits of World War II outweigh the drawbacks

Personally, I REALLY want to do the Justin Bieber one, but it's up to you.
Posted by Dpowell 2 years ago
I would like to debate the point of the victims of the current shootings of Missouri, and how those cops' actions were wrong, and morally racist.
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
> Private companies should run prostitution.

> I don't know what you mean by calling people "stock." Can you explain?

> I am against a border fence along both Canada and Mexico.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
I'm interested in the Prostitution, euthanasia, and boarder fense debate.

For the Prostitution would it be leagalized and ran by fed or by private companies?

For Euthanasia would it quote the euthanized victems as stock?

The boarder fense would go across Canada and Mexico?
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
I would debate any and every of the following topics with you. This is the order of my preference, but you can take your pick:

Gay Marriage
Medical (and/or Recreational) Marijuana
Drug Legalization
Border Fence
Home Schooling
The War on Terror
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
It is pretty interesting playing devil's advocate. Unfortunately my opponent ff'd the debate I instigated to him.
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Lol @ everyone wanting to take the pro-gay marriage side

Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
I could do either side of gay marriage. :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Not grading arguments due to con's confusion (accidently arguing the pro side), however this does not change the reality of the forfeit. ... Were I to grade arguments here's the highlights: From CR1S1 "If Brown attacked the police ... then any cop has a right to defend himself, including using force, even if that force is lethal." Next round Pro's source talks of a broken eye bone suffered by the officer, which does not happen from merely opening a car door so fast that it closes again on your face (test it if you like). The shot in the back narrative is comical at this point, I can only guess officer Wilson was a wizard (only explanation consistent with the bullet holes, and not calling eye witnesses liars). However (part of why I'm willing to be so lenient to con), pro used this debate as a podium to talk about issues other than the original shooting, what has happened since it has no baring on if it was a justified kill.