Resolved:On balance, police are more responsible than protesters for recent civil unrest in the Uni
Debate Rounds (3)
Observation 1: In order for the pro to win, they must prove that the protesters are not the cause of civil unrest
Recent: Having happened, begun, or been done not long"ago"or not long before; belonging to a"past period of time"comparatively"close to the present OXFORD
Responsible: Having an"obligation"to do something, or having control over or"care"for someone, as part of one"s job or role OXFORD
Contention 1: Police Not Responsible
The police aren"t responsible because they are part of the government and the government was built on racism. The reason Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, and Michael Brown incidents keep happening is because our government was built on racism. Racism is a part of our country, not saying that"s good, but the country has racism embedded in it. We can"t change racism if it is a part of the government. Not all the police are racist but the Ferguson and Baltimore police were trained in a racist society. They were trained by racist instructors. They aren"t responsible. Another reason they"re not responsible because whenever black people see them, they mock them and say that they are just pigs eating donuts. When protests and riots break out, the police come out with the only sole purpose to protect the people in case the situation gets out of hand. If no one is listening and the citizens commit arson, assault the officers, and loot stores, the police have no choice but to use force and make the citizens listen. They are only using brute force because no one will listen to them. Of course, no matter what situation, good or bad, there is always that one group that won"t listen and rebel. For example, what happened in the Baltimore and Ferguson riot, some listened, but some thought that police were being complete scrubs and they rebel, making the situation worse for them and the police officers. For example, one mom saw one of her children in the riot, and then she pulled him out and yelled at him. Later in an interview from CNN, she stated that she didn"t want her son to participate in the riot. "Graham said when she arrived at Mondawmin Mall, she saw people throwing objects at police. She said what she saw could not be called protesters out for justice." She thought the riot got out of hand, and she didn"t want her child to be looting and burning buildings.
Sub Point A: Misconception
According to Ta-Nahesi Coates, senior writer of The Atlantic from March 5, 2015, "The investigation concluded that physical evidence and witness statements corroborated Wilson's claim that Michael Brown reached into the car and struck the officer. It concluded that claims that Wilson reached out and grabbed Brown first "were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence." "The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to contradict Wilson's claim that Brown reached for his gun. The investigation concluded that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back. That he did not shoot Brown as he was running away. That Brown did stop and turn toward Wilson. That in those next moments "several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson." That claims that Brown had his hands up "in an unambiguous sign of surrender" are not supported by the "physical and forensic evidence," and are sometimes, "materially inconsistent with that witness"s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time." So saying that Wilson shot Brown because Wilson was racist is completely false. And if a police officer feels that his or someone else"s live is in danger, he can take out his gun and fire.
Contention 2: Protesters Are Responsible
The protesters are responsible because they are making the lives of other people and the lives of officers harder. The officers have to go through mocking, harassing, and discrimination by the citizens and that does not help anyone. The officers then have to deal with protests, riots, and looting very often and it is just making their jobs very rough to go through. They didn"t choose to be racist; they were raised in a racist society. The protesters just make it worse by light stuff on fire, assaulting the officers, looting, mocking, and harassing the officers. The officers are just trying to keep everyone safe and keeping the situation from going out of hand. And even if they use unnecessary gear, we agree that it is a bit unnecessary, they need the people to listen, and since the gear is not fatal and the effects are temporary. That"s why the protesters are not doing any good for themselves or for the society.
I affirm the resolution.
Observation One: The wording of the resolution shows that in order to win, I need to show that police are more responsible than protesters in instances of civil unrest. Con needs to show how police are not more responsible in order to win. This means that if I'm giving you sufficient evidence to show that police are more responsible for the creation of civil unrest, then you affirm.
Observation Two: I don't defend that the fault lies 100% on the police. I don't even necessarily defend that 50% of the fault lies on police. All I need to defend is that more fault lies on the police than the protesters, regardless of how much at fault any particular side is in order to win. In order for Con to win, he must show that more fault lies on the protesters than the police, regardless of how much fault in particular.
Contention One is Institutionalized Racism:
The facts are pretty straight: the United States Federal Government is discriminatory against those of a race that isn't white. The statistics are absolutely dumb-founding: traffic stops, arrest rates, sentencing time length, severity of the sentencing, anything you really want to potentially think about is staggeringly higher for blacks and other minorities than it is for whites. This institutionalized discrimination spreads over into the Criminal Justice System, and into the nation's police force. Officers, both current and former, are quick to admit that the force is blatantly racist.
This institutionalized racism is what's noted as the root cause of the kinds of civil unrest that leads to the riots that have taken place recently. These roots can be traced all the way back to the 60s and 50s where these same racial triggers cascade downwards into massive rioting and looting.
This leads us to affirm the resolution because the police are the hand of the state: they're the tool that the government uses to enforce their laws and do their bidding. The police take this task to heart and arrest, search, and detain more blacks than whites, where the judicial system finishes them off with harsher sentencing and unfair jury panels.
So this argument is pretty simple: if racism is the root cause of civil unrest, civil unrest much like that of the recent uprisings of rioting, and police racially discriminate against those they police, then they perpetuate the causes of civil unrest and are, therefore, more responsible than the protesters.
And, don't let him stand up and say that the logic works both ways because that line of reasoning is blind to the vastly superior power that police officers wield compared to the average citizen as well as the existing divide between the police force and the citizenry that has been the direct cause of the uprisings: a white citizen killing a black citizen is a tragedy, but a white cop killing a black citizen is a reason to riot against the state.
With that being said, let's address his case. I'll go line-by-line:
He says "Observation 1: In order for the pro to win, they must prove that the protesters are not the cause of civil unrest"
Then go to his Contention One.
Then, go to his Subpoint A to Contention One:
Then, go to his second contention:
I'm showing that the root cause of civil unrest in the US is the institutionalized racism that is enforced via the police force, which creates the tension and circumstances that creates riots. This means that the fault rests more on police than protestors, which means that the resolution is affirmed.
 - http://www.usnews.com...
 - http://www.nytimes.com...
 - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
 - http://journalistsresource.org...
 - http://www.alternet.org...
 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
titanic1216 forfeited this round.
Extend my arguments.
titanic1216 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.