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

Should Cops Have to Wear Cameras?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/14/2015 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 83923
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Of course they should be!


I'll save my main arguments for Round 2. I would like Pro to elaborate on how a cop would wear a camera, and why. (He probably means a body camera, but I still would like Pro to explain further)
Debate Round No. 1


1. There will be a decrease in use of force.

2. Mysteries will be better solved.

3. Officers will be much more friendly to the civilians.

Then, everybody will live happily ever after.

I now hope to see the main aguments of the con and the refutations.

Vote pro.


Well... Okay, I'm going to start this round with some clarifications.

By "camera" we will assume Pro means a Body Camera. I also want to point out Pro's argument is a bit too simplistic. Here's my rebuttal; what's the issues with Pro's arguments?


"There will be a decrease in use of force" You need to elaborate/explain this point further. How do you know a decrease in force will happen? Also, force from the police? How much is the decrease, and does it do anything?

"Mysteries will be better solved" I don't see how. A body camera only works if you're in that room. You're in that room, you probably saw what happened. No need for a camera, you just arrest the guy. Problem solved! Pro needs to elaborate on this part as well. What does camera footage change about the fact that our police officer SAW the crime?

"Officers will be much more friendly to the civilians" What do you mean? Are the police just attacking people; shoot first, ask questions later? Plus, how would the camera stop the police from shooting random suspects? If anything, sounds like someone could frame the police for murder Just sneak up behind them, and fire the pistol!

"Then, everybody will live happily ever after." Is that so? I'll argue the opposite.


A huge concern about body cameras are about privacy issues. Let's assume a police officer hears about a theft suspect named Tom. The officer walks in Tom's house, and he doesn't know what to expect. When the officer comes into Tom's room, he's looking at pictures of feminine animals. This would be extremely embarrassing for Tom, since he got caught on a camera, which the footage won't be deleted in a month or so, and the police department might look at said footage. THIS is an example of violation of Tom's privacy.

Again, I see no difference between an officer who saw something, versus a camera that saw something. Chances are, the cop will NOT lie about seeing someone murder or something. There's no reason for a body camera.

With that, Pro must counter my argument, and defend AND explain his original points in great detail. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2


Vane01 forfeited this round.


To sum up this debate, cops should NOT have to wear body cameras, because he might accidentally record footage of a furry. Pro has not given a sufficient argument, just some vague contentions, and forfeited round 3. The winner seems rather clear here. Vote Con! I CON-tributed sufficient arguments. (LOL)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by retroz 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture of round 3... There was no true statistics and neither argument was very convincing