Should Cops Have to Wear Cameras?
Debate Rounds (3)
Of course they should be!
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.
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.
Vane01 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by retroz 1 year 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: Forfeiture of round 3... There was no true statistics and neither argument was very convincing
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.