Resolved: Darren Wilson was doing his police duty in Ferguson.
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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. http://www.oakpark.com.... 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.
http://fox2now.com...) The police office then came across Brown, who attacked him. Wilson walked away with a broken eye bone. (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) 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. (http://wonkette.com...)
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. (http://youngcons.com...)
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. (http://allhiphop.com...) and (http://www.pewresearch.org...) 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.
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.
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. (http://www.usatoday.com...)
He attacked officer Darren Wilson so he shot him in defense. He even obtained a broken eye bone from the attack by Brown. (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) 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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate