The Instigator
DeltaMed910
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Debate_Kid101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

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...
DeltaMed910
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 79758
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

DeltaMed910

Con

1st round for acceptance.

Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

Definitions:
Demiliarization: reduction of a polices's equipment, weapons, or military vehicles to an agreed minimum
United States: United States of America
Police: the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.

May the better debater win!
Audemus jura nostra defendere
Debate_Kid101

Pro

So to start of the pro side of this argument lets start off with the police being already too overpowered. 1.The police are already too overpowered.
a.The department of Homeland Security have been giving grants to the police since 2003
b.Most militarization today happens outside of the 1033 Program. Giving them new military-grade gear
c.The police will always have a SWAT team. Larger departments already have several.
d.Therefor as stating before "overpowered".
e.The police already having, tanks, and other militarized weapons put them at an all-time advantage, which is not good.
i.Tanks, and other tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircrafts and vehicles, firearms and ammunition measuring .50-caliber and larger, grenade launchers and bayonets.
ii.Also bringing in attack dogs, tear gas, and other harmful materials.
iii.(1033 was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 as part of the U.S. Government"s Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA) to transfer excess military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies.)
Yes I know I did state this before.
Debate Round No. 1
DeltaMed910

Con

Ask yourself: how many times have you seen a crime through the eyes of the police? Every video of a crime online is through the eyes of the perpetrator and only show the officer using force. What did the perpetrator do? We assume their innocence and are quick to blame the police simply because we never saw them in the act.

A. History
History shows that long before police were militarized, they were harassing innocent and non-violent citizens based on their own prejudices and lusts for power. These aren’t just qualities of a heavily armed police state. Removing the armored vehicles and military weapons will help decrease the shock and shame of overly armed police, but the fact remains that violence begets violence and the state is inherently impotent to regulate itself. Change can only come when Americans–- currently jaded by and disenchanted with political engagement–- stop tolerating authority through force and develop a more skeptical attitude toward government while actively holding it accountable.

B. Duty
You say that the police need to focus on their job "serving the needs of our citizens and protecting neighborhoods from all threats", and I do not disagree with that statement; but the facts are that it is very dangerous to be a police officer.

My uncle a police officer in a large city, so he knew the dangers first hand. He knew the dangers when he became an officer, but at the end of every tour he wanted to go home to his family. He was tasked with the protection of the community, and that is a dangerous job where officers in the country have a higher chance of being killed than in any other first world country. He used these weapons from handguns to M-4 rifles and specialized uniforms (camouflage and tactical vests) to help him keep the members of community safe and keep his fellow officers safe.

The military use the similar weapons and uniforms, but they are not the police. They are two very different entities that do two very different jobs, it just happens that some of the equipment is the same.

The vast majority of police are good people who genuinely want to help the people in their communities.

Bottom line; if the bad guys out there, who are preying on the weak, stop trying to kill police and stop using weapons themselves, then we can all put our guns away. The police have to live and work in the world we all live in, not the world you want this to be.

WE CAN'T COMPARE OURSELVES TO EUROPEAN STATES LIKE BRITAIN AND FINLAND; HOW MANY OF THOSE COUNTRIES SHARE A LARGE BORDER WITH A COUNTRY LIKE MEXICO, WHERE GUNS AND DRUGS POUR IN BY THE KILOTONS?

C. Cherry Picked Evidence

We’ve all seen the pictures presented by those who decry the “militarization” of American police forces. Typically, these pictures juxtapose sophisticated police equipment and weaponry with a crowd that is peacefully demonstrating or just milling about.

I understand and respect the arguments made by those who argue that some of our police forces have become “militarized.” However, I’ve seen no evidence that the fancy equipment possessed by these police forces has caused harm.

There will always be incidents of police brutality and over-reaction. But has the “militarization” of the police led to more such incidents? Has the specific equipment that people object to the police now having been misused in ways that have caused more damage than the more traditional equipment that (I hope) is considered unobjectionable? Not that I’m aware of.

As a general matter, I think it’s desirable for the police to possess overwhelmingly more force than those who may confront it.

Arguments for proportionality in available force are less persuasive and fail, in my view, absent evidence of a pattern of abuse.

Before I close my arguments, I'd like to press a burden upon the PRO:

Is there a change in police demeanor between a demilitarized one and a more proteced one? Has the "militarization" led to more crimes? Has it caused more damage? To remove it, to demilitarize the police, you must have a reason that tells us why having more defences against the criminals (which will never go away, and will always find guns) is such a BAD thing.

Thanks.

Debate_Kid101

Pro

Debate_Kid101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DeltaMed910

Con

By laws of debate and common sense, I claim victory.
Debate_Kid101

Pro

Debate_Kid101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DeltaMed910

Con

meh? meh.

Quick Fact of the Day:
Did you know the famous quote "et tu, Brute?" does NOT mean "and you, Brutus?"
"et tu" used in that case is a Latin contraction for "etiam tu" which means "and you too".
Julius Caesar's last words in the play were therefore actually "and you too, Brutus? Then fall, Caesar!"
Debate_Kid101

Pro

Debate_Kid101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DeltaMed910

Con

Quick Fact of the Day:
Basketball, volleyball, and racquetball were all invented by the YMCA!
Debate_Kid101

Pro

Debate_Kid101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by krayracker 2 years ago
krayracker
Ugh. Same thing is happening to me. I am facing Debate_Kid101 on the same topic... So far, full forfeiture by Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DeltaMed910Debate_Kid101Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture