The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ajn0592
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The police officers weren't justified in thier crowd control tactics at the rainbow gathering july 3

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2008 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,488 times Debate No: 5055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

Harlan

Pro

In July of this summer, during the annual rainbow gathering, law enforcement officers aggressively entered kid village to arrest someone. When a lady asked the officers to take their guns out of kid village, they violently detained her as well.

Looking to instigate a riot, they prematurely began firing rubber bullets, pepper spray balls, and using tazers on the gatherers. People had welts all over their body from the close range barrage of pepper spray balls. They randomly shot with no discrimination even shooting people who were trying to calm the riot; the people who were holding people back from attacking the officers.

This all took place in kid village where kids were everywhere. Kid village is where all the families with kids stay. A little girl was shot in the face with a pepper spray ball.

The rainbow gathering is about love and harmony, and they were posing little or no real threat to the officers. People have the full right to exclaim their opinions to officers, and do not deserve to be shot at in response.

If anything, their crowd control methods only made the situation more dangerous, rightfully angering the people that they would start a fight in kid village. The police were completely responsible for the riot. If they had done a better job, they would have arrested the man somewhere else than kid village, and they would have quickly and discreetly gone in and out, without starting the riot.

-Harlan
ajn0592

Con

The police officers were justified in their crowd control tactics during the Rainbow Gathering on July 3rd 2008 for 1 major reason: During the Rainbow Gathering nearly 400 people attending the gathering began to overrun the police escorting 2 arrested individuals out of the gathering. The mob began throwing sticks and stones at the police, in which case the police felt as though their lives were in danger, this is why the action was justified.

As you can see in this article from the Casper Star Tribune on July 5th 2008 -"The Forest Service's Incident Command Team in Rock Springs issued a press release Friday morning, saying officers were patrolling the main meadow of the gathering Thursday evening when they contacted a man who fled and was later caught. Another Rainbow was detained for physically interfering.

Officers began to leave the area with the subjects and were circled by Rainbow participants, according to the news release from Rita Vollmer of the Incident Command Team.

Ten officers were escorting the detained subjects when about 400 Rainbows surrounded the squad, and more officers were requested, according to the news release.

"The mob began to advance, throwing sticks and rocks at the officers. Crowd control tactics were used to keep moving through the group of Rainbows," the news release said"

That specifically states why the action was justified, the link is here - 'http://www.freerepublic.com...' for those who want the actual evidence.

Now, the question of whether or not the events at the Rainbow Gathering could be considered a "Riot" which justifies Crowd/Riot Control methods... Performing a simple Google "Define: Riot" search i got these definitions for riot:

Definitions of riot on the Web:
1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob
2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence

The Rainbow Gathering incident matches both of these definitions

Definition 1: The Rainbow Gathering event matches definition 1 of riot because simply put, the group of 400 people surrounding the officers was an "Unruly Mob" and they were participating in violence against the officers when they began throwing sticks and stones which could cause bodily injury

Definition 2: This is straight forward, the Rainbow Gathering event matches this definition because it was violence from a large (400 person) group of people

Now, whether or not the riot at Rainbow Gathering justified riot control measures, first off, yes, in fact, it did justify riot/crowd control measures because the officers' lives were in danger from death from mob (AKA Lynching). The officers could have easily been harmed or even killed from the large group of people.

With all of these reasons, i believe that the actions at Rainbow Gathering were justified. Espessially considering that technically, the gathering did not ever have a permit to even be in the Forest it was in.

-AJN0592
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

"The mob began throwing sticks and stones at the police, in which case the police felt as though their lives were in danger, this is why the action was justified."

The keyword is "felt". Feeling something is justified does not make it justified. They should have kept their cool, and not been so quick to randomly shoot people. If they are not capable of THAT, than they should be fired.

Someone who witnessed the event firsthand said this on their myspace blog:

"The police claim in their statement that we were throwing rocks and sticks. I did not observe or participate in such behavior"

If anyone was throwing rocks, it was a small group of people, because it was not observed by this bystander. The danger then could not have been that great. Additionally, the police did NOT only shoot those who were throwing the rocks, but randomly firing at innocent bystanders with no affiliation to those who were throwing rocks.

"‘Another Rainbow was detained for physically interfering'"

In an "action alert" released by the "Colorado legal eagles", it said:

"…one concerned woman tried asking the feds
what the man had done. The feds refused to answer, and instead
viciously threw the woman to the ground and pulled her head back by
her hair while she was being handcuffed"

"Officers began to leave the area with the subjects and were circled by Rainbow participants, according to the news release from Rita Vollmer of the Incident Command Team."

Having people stand near does not constitute justification for shooting people.

"…question of whether or not the events at the Rainbow Gathering could be considered a ‘Riot'…"

The incident at the rainbow gathering is summed up by the term police riot.

Definition of police riot from wikipedia:

"A police riot is a term used for the wrongful, disproportionate, unlawful, and illegitimate use of force by a group of police against a group of civilians."

This definition would fit more accurately, as far as I see it.

"Which justifies Crowd/Riot Control methods..."

Just because something is officially called a method of riot control, does not mean that it is ethically justified to use.

"Now, whether or not the riot at Rainbow Gathering justified riot control measures, first off, yes, in fact, it did justify riot/crowd control measures because the officers' lives were in danger from death from mob (AKA Lynching). The officers could have easily been harmed or even killed from the large group of people."

Yes there was a large group of people surrounding them, but only a small group of people throwing stones. In fact many people were trying to keep the situation peaceful (they were shot too).

People who were not partaking in violence were shot too. That is not justified.

They pointed guns at several children and a baby. That is not justified.

They brought violence into kid village. That is not justified.

"Since the Gathering started on July 1, the feds have cited hundreds of
people for minor infractions of the law. Almost every vehicle entering
the site has been searched, and gatherers are routinely harassed and
intimidated. Campers have been charged with dirty license plates,
failure to use a turn signal on a 4WD dirt road, and having objects
dangling from their rear view mirror"

-colorado legal eagles

It would not be surprising then that the police were trying to instigate a riot.

It is also questionable whether the police officer's lives were really in danger when reading this from the same "action alert" as above:

"The feds say
that the campers threw "sticks and rocks" at them during the incident.
This has not been substantiated. However, this excuse is used every
year by the feds as part of their propaganda campaign against the
Rainbows to justify their harsh tactics. In Colorado in 2006, the feds
also accused the Rainbows of throwing sticks and stones, but video
evidence later proved that this was a lie."

At the end of your argument you say:

"Espessially considering that technically, the gathering did not ever have a permit to even be in the Forest it was in."

First of all its "especially", not "espessialy". Also the gathering does not need a permit because it is not an official gathering. It has no officially recognized organization, and it has no leader(s). It is simply a collective group of individual campers who have all chosen to camp in the same area at the same time. It is a constitutional right that allows you to freely assemble.

-Harlan
ajn0592

Con

First of all, i would like to point out that all of my opponents evidence is from the "Colorado Legal Eagles". Who, in their mission statement state: "The Eagles are first and foremost Rainbows. The Rainbow is one of the many broad classes of citizens suffering discrimination. For many years the federal government has engaged in a policy of oppression of the Rainbow Culture. The Rainbow Culture enshrines the general respect for nature and believe there is no reason why humans can not live upon our planet without destroying it's life giving properties. We makes no apologies for these positions. The Eagles will assist the right of Rainbow People to continue the struggle for justice, to peaceably assemble on the land, to speak freely of their cumulative knowledge and experiences, and to demonstrate the value of this vision to others.

Therefore, the Eagles find it necessary to oppose federal regulations designed to oppress and criminalize the activities of Rainbow. The Eagles are moved to utilize all means necessary and legal, and enter the political fight to defeat those forces of tyranny, and uphold our right to gather."

There are many problems with this source, first of all, it is a group of rainbows, of course they would be biased towards the rainbowers and also, it says that they oppose all federal regulations. That said, i will now proceed with the Line-By-Line analysis

Off of my Opponents first argument, He said that the officers feeling as though their lives are in danger was the original problem with this incident and that they should have kept their cool.

My response to this is that the officers were surrounded by 400 Rainbow Gatherers, all of which were angry at them and could have easily caused bodily injury and harm to the officers. At any point this could have escalated and the Officers acted justly to stop any action of potential deadly violence, the officers used non-lethal pepper and rubber bullets.

Off of my Opponents second argument, he states that a witnesses myspace page states that there was no throwing of stones by a large number of people.

My response: First of all, ignore this argument, for 1 reason: we have no idea who this random myspacer is and there is no way to verify his credentials. Also, this person is most likely a Rainbow Gatherer himself since he was a part of that mob. This is one reason to disregard this persons claim, because he is just as biased as the Colorado Legal Eagles.

Also, even if you do credit this "evidence" in the debate, My opponent still says that there would have only been a small group of people of throwing rocks, this small group though, is enough to justify the response of the officers. The officers were justified simply because assaulting the officers like the Rainbow Gathering Participants were doing, justified use of Deadly force, in which actual bullets would be used. The police were highly justified to use the non lethal force they did when a group of gatherers were throwing rocks which could kill or maim any of the officers.

My opponent now brings up more of the evidence from the Colorado Legal Eagles, but i will answer it anyway. First, his evidence states that a woman was restrained and while put into handcuffs had her hair pulled back, just for asking why a man was being arrested. this is unreasonable to say that she was just thrown to the ground and arrested for nothing, the woman would have been told to back away from the officers before she was thrown to the ground if this was the case. The officers wanted to get in and get out with the person they were arresting and instead got surrounded by 400 participants in the rainbow gathering, which constitutes as a mob/riot which justifies police riot/crowd control methods.

My opponent then brings up the idea of a constitutional right to stand by the officers and inquire what was happening. This is true, and this incident would not have happened if the Rainbow Participants would have only stood by and not interfere, but instead, the participants decided to throw rocks and sticks at the officers for no reason at all. That is not justified in the constitution, in no place of the constitution is it justifiable to start assaulting officers with rocks or sticks which could kill them.

At this point in Harlan's Argument he changes my definition of Riot which was defined as "1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob & 2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence) into a definition of a Police Riot. At this point he has Conceded that the events at the rainbow gathering could be considered a Riot and he conceded my analysis that a riot justifies this type of response. You need to Vote CON Now for this reason alone!

Harlan then brings up a definition for "Police Riot" because he felt it fit more accurately for this definition. his Definition was "A police riot is a term used for the wrongful, disproportionate, unlawful, and illegitimate use of force by a group of police against a group of civilians." This is not an accurate description for this event. i will break it down further though:

first, it says that it is 'wrongful' use of power, this use of power was justified by my analysis above with my riot definitions and officers fearing for their lives and also, it was justified simply because the officers were being overrun by a group of 400 rainbowers and to prevent bodily injury, they stepped in to stop this mob.

Second, his definition states that it is a Disproportionate use of power, if there was a form of disproportionality in this event, it was in the disproportion between the amount of rainbowers to Police. There were around 10 police officers and 400 rainbowers, that is a 40:1 ratio of rainbowers to police. In no way does this incident match the disproportionate part of his definition.

Third, his definition states that a police riot is unlawful, this response was not unlawful because riot/crowd control measures are sanctioned by the government for these types of situations, especially in situations such as these when the use of deadly force is sanctioned.

Fourth, his definition states that a police riot is an illegitimate response, but this was a completely legit and justified response as i have exabberated on above.

This event in no way meets the definition of 'police riot' although it does classify as a general riot as Conceded by Harlan.

Now Harlan talks about an "Ethical Justification" For this response, well, performing a simple google "Define: Ethical" query, i get the response of "conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior", this is completely ethically justifiable for this response, because it conforms to accepted standards of Professional Behavior, when a mob/riot begins, the police have a standard of responding with crowd control measures so it was completely an ethically justifiable response to this mob.

Now he states that people were trying to be peacekeepers in this mob. If they were trying to keep the peace they would go back to their tents and not participate in the riot to begin with.

he states "They pointed guns at several children and a baby" - This is not verified anywhere except for in Colorado Legal Eagle documents and blog posts, this is not backed up, and the officers would not aim to shoot at children, the articles probably make it sound worse than it is by saying this even if it was just a simple unintentional aiming, it wouldn't be intentional.

next he says it isn't justifiable for the guns to be in the kid village, well, if the parents didnt bring POT and other drugs into the Kid village putting their kids in danger of getting high, there wouldnt be that problem...

The feds may say the "rocks and sticks" every year, but that is because the maybe rainbows do it every year? think of that...

And the campers arent justified on that round, it is national forest land, not public.
-ajn0592
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

I will respond to each of my opponents statements chronologically:

"all of my opponents evidence is from the ‘Colorado Legal Eagles'."

This is untrue. I also got evidence from an eyewitness's blog.

"There are many problems with this source, first of all, it is a group of rainbows, of course they would be biased towards the rainbowers and also, it says that they oppose all federal regulations."

Most of the evidence in this report, is confirmed by the link YOU provided to a page on freerepublic (see round 1). If there are ANY inconsistancies please point them out. I would also

I would also like to call attention to my opponents hypocrisy in criticizing me for using a source from someone on the rainbow's side: he got much of his information from the "The Forest Service's Incident Command Team in Rock Springs" (see his round 1). Since his information is from the forest service, it would be equally biased. My opponent is being hypocritical with his usage of sources. So if my opponent asserts the reader should ignore my evidence, he is also implying you should ignore his.

"My response to this is that the officers were surrounded by 400 Rainbow Gatherers, all of which were angry at them and could have easily caused bodily injury and harm to the officers."

The notion that every last individual, as you claim, were angry enough to cause harm to them, is a fallacy. You repeatedly make this false claim that all 400 gatherers who were following the police had the intention of hurting them. A quick glance at video footage can show that many people were trying to keep the situation peacefull, saying things like "do you want something to eat?", and "we don't want to hurt you". So this point of my opponents must be ignored due to the factual error.

"Off of my Opponents second argument, he states that a witnesses myspace page states that there was no throwing of stones by a large number of people"

Yet again: untrue. If you will read the quote, it makes no claim that there were no throwing of stones. It merely states that this bystander did not witness such act. My opponent attempts to twist my words to his favor.

"Also, this person is most likely a Rainbow Gatherer himself since he was a part of that mob. This is one reason to disregard this persons claim, because he is just as biased as the Colorado Legal Eagles."

Yes, he is a rainbow gatherer, from what I could make out. The colorado legal eagles, or you're "Forest Service's Incident Command Team" may be doubted because they could be biased on legal or political terms, but an innocent bystander would have no motivation to lie or make up stories. It is a fallacy to suggest that a random witness would have reason to make up stories and lie for no apparent reason.

"Also, even if you do credit this "evidence" in the debate, My opponent still says that there would have only been a small group of people of throwing rocks"

If there were any at all.

"The police were highly justified to use the non lethal force they did when a group of gatherers were throwing rocks which could kill or maim any of the officers"

1.We can't even be sure if there was any throwing of rocks, because so far, all wev got on the matter is the police's word vs. the rainbow's word PLUS video footage.

2.In the hypothetical that rocks WERE being thrown, there is obviously very few, and if they were rocks large enough to hurt the officers, they would probably be noticed by the earlier mentioned witness. For all we know, a few gatherers could have been throwing small rocks, if they were throwing rocks at all. In the end result, the police were fine, but individual gatherers who were trying to calm the situation, got terrible fevers from being shot at with several mace balls.

In the event that rocks were being thrown, the officers should have singled them out in the crowd, and not randomly shot into the crowd. That is unproffesional and dangerous. If most of the people that were shot were not throwing rocks, than it is dispraportionate.

"this is unreasonable to say that she was just thrown to the ground and arrested for nothing, the woman would have been told to back away from the officers before she was thrown to the ground if this was the case"

Since you will not trust the legal eagles, I have done the liberty of doing research elsewhere…

In the casper star tribune, which my opponent has used as a source in his round one, it says:

"A woman in the village told the officers to take their guns out of the Kid Village. An officer threw that woman to the ground and pulled her head back by her hair while she was being handcuffed, one Rainbow named Rick told Stevens."

It also says this on the page you gave a link too I your round 1.

"surrounded by 400 participants in the rainbow gathering, which constitutes as a mob/riot which justifies police riot/crowd control methods."

The definition of riot that my opponent gave is this:

"1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob
2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence"

This does not describe 400 people "surrounding". 400 people standing around you does not constitute a riot, so that is a factual error on my opponent's side…verified by his own definition.

You also called it a mob. I will agree that the scenario of 400 people surroundig someone fits SOME definitions of mob. But there is no such thing as the term "mob control". And having people surround you is not an excuse to randomly shoot innocent people.

"but instead, the participants decided to throw rocks and sticks at the officers for no reason at all"

Once more, my opponent makes the assertion that rocks were being thrown, when there is no conclusive evidence to verify that. However, in the purely hypothetical scenario that rocks were being thrown by gatherers it would only be a small amound. The officers obviously did not only shoot this hypothetical small amount, bt shot everybody. My opponent in the above quote lumps the whole crowd into the term "participants". To him, if one person throws a rock, then it is the action of the whole crowd, and that it is ok to shoot the whole crowd. This, however, is not true…It was not one entity, but a collection of individuals all with different motives. It was not justified to shoot those who had good motives, which the police did.

"At this point he has Conceded that the events at the rainbow gathering could be considered a Riot and he conceded my analysis that a riot justifies this type of response. You need to Vote CON Now for this reason alone!"

IF this incident is considered a riot, then it was a riot started by the police. And that is not justified.

"first, it says that it is 'wrongful' use of power…"

Shooting innocent people with mace balls is wrong.

"Second, his definition states that it is a Disproportionate use of power"

You describe it as a battle. If it were a battle, then the police won by a longshot, ruining your claim of dispraportianateness in favor of the rainbows. It wasn't a battle, however. It was a bunch of scared cops overreacting. Responding to a bunch of people standing around you by randomly shooting them is certainly dispraportianate.

"Third, his definition states that a police riot is unlawful"

This ones all how you define the laws. But that's what lawyers are for. To shoot innocent bystanders of an arrest could be considered unlawful, in a court of law.

Due to a limited number of characters, I have posted the rest of my argument in the comments section. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
ajn0592

Con

First, i am going to start by addressing the debate over evidence sources, My evidence is not all from the 'The Forest Service's Incident Command Team in Rock Springs', it is from TOM MORTON a writer for the Casper Star Tribune and one quote was from the Incident Command Team. Disregard his evidence still though because all of his, not just 1 quote, is from the Colorado Legal Eagles (CLE) and Eyewitnesses who are all rainbows, Tom Morton is the best source in this round since he is not a rainbow and is not on any police force. And he states he has 2 sources, because he has an eyewitness blog, but i addressed this too earlier, that blogs should not be counted because there is no way to get any credentials or credability from myspace blogs, i have no source just "he is an eyewitness on myspace", i gave links and sources, i have evidence, he has assertions, vote him down for not having credable, and non biased sources. Harlan also made a big mistake when he forgot to answer that in the mission statement of the CLE states that they are opposed to all of the gov't so they are the most biased.

Now to the Line-By-Line

First my opponent states that i should be voted down for a fallacy because not all 400 rioters were intent on injuring the officers, although this may be true, i also explained how even if not all 400 people were intent on bodily harm to the officers, the police were still justified. Because there was still a large majority of the rioters who wanted injury on the officers.

Now Harlan starts bringing up the myspacer again. First, extend that he should be ignored in this round, and also now, i will explain on this more. From what Harlan himself gathered, he came to the conclusion that the myspacer is most likely a rainbower himself, this is bad for 2 reasons: 1. It is biased, because of course he would have a motive to lie about what happened, and that is to make the rainbowers sound less like a Drugged up group of people who attacked police and make it sound like they are more innocent, and reason 2 is, he is just as biased as any other of his sources in this round because all of his sources are from rainbowers or an anarchal group people who have biased support towards the rainbowers. This myspacer needs to be discounted

He now trys to get out of rocks being thrown, dont take this now, he did not answer this like this before, and now is trying to get out of my arguments. First, earlier in the debate, he stated that there was only a "Small Group" of people throwing rocks, this is why the police were justified. now he says there werent people throwing rocks, but this is untrue, there were rocks, look to my Casper Star Tribune Evidence for this fact!

now he says "We can't even be sure if there was any throwing of rocks, because so far, all wev got on the matter is the police's word vs. the rainbow's word PLUS video footage." - This is false, as i have pointed out before, I have evidence from a NEWSPAPER not police reports! ALL he has is evidence from Rainbowers and an anarchist group with video footage which was terrible! The video footage should be disregarded because it was never brought up in this debate and no link was given so i could see, so there is a good source in this round and it is mine!

Then he states the rocks are hypothetical and would have been small. My partner has no evidence here and Cross apply my analysis above on how bad this myspace post is. It can be disregarded. There were rocks being thrown and regardless of how large they are, it is violence towards police, that justifies the measures used! Then he states that people got a fever from mace balls... this is wrong, Harlan has no clue how mace works, mace doesnt give you a fever, it makes your eyes and nose run, thats not a fever, dont let him just appeal to your emotions to win this debate.

Now he tried to defend his 'police riot' term, but 1, he never answered my analysis on it being wrongful, unlawful, and illegitimate use of force by police part of the definition. This definition requires ALL parts of the definition not just 1 of them to be true, so at the point where he dropped my analysis on Wrongful, Unlawful and illegitimate, I win this definition because he has to meet all of those definitions for it to be considered a police riot.

and Harlan still has not answered any of my riot terms, so pull those through, because when something is considered a riot, it justifies these measures, so since he conceded it was a riot, these measures were justified, vote me up now!
He attacks my definition after it was conceded through round 2, so dont let him bring this up now, but also, in round 1 i gave more analysis than just "400 people surrounding the police is a riot" here is my analysis from round 1:
Definitions of riot on the Web:
1. a public act of violence by an unruly mob
2. rioting: a state of disorder involving group violence

The Rainbow Gathering incident matches both of these definitions

Definition 1: The Rainbow Gathering event matches definition 1 of riot because simply put, the group of 400 people surrounding the officers was an "Unruly Mob" and they were participating in violence against the officers when they began throwing sticks and stones which could cause bodily injury

Definition 2: This is straight forward, the Rainbow Gathering event matches this definition because it was violence from a large (400 person) group of people"

he meets both definitions, and it went conceded in round 2, so this is 100% true!

Now he brings back up the whole question of the small group V large group.

If people had good motives, they would have stayed out of it and not try to get in on the action and even try to do something to stop the arrest. they would have gone back to their tents and just let the situation settle its self. This analysis went conceded so it is true. If the riot is brewing, and it was a riot because he conceded it, then all people surrounding the police were guilty of being rioters, so the riot control measures could be used on them. IT WAS A RIOT - HE DID NOT DO ENOUGH ANALYSIS ON THIS!

now he says "IF this incident is considered a riot, then it was a riot started by the police. And that is not justified." - untrue, i disproved the 'police riot' definition and he conceded my riot definition and analysis, so it will always be considered a riot started by the rainbowers surrounding the police.

now he starts answering my police riot definition with 1 sentance each to my multiple sentance definitions, well

for wrongful, he says shooting innocent people is wrong but wrongful is: "wrong or unjust; unlawful or illegal" from a google "define:" search. Now, i have proven it was justified so it was not wrongful, and i will prove it is legal what the police did...

now he answers the disproportionate claim, but 1: he states here also something that helps everywhere else: "It was a bunch of scared cops" the cops were scared for their lives so they were just to act. And for disproportionateality, remember from my rnd 2, there were 40 times the rainbows than cops, it was disproportionate towards the cops.

the events were unlawful for the rainbows not police, if there is a riot, every rioter (all 400 rainbows) are guilty and measures will be used against them. it is lawful

DO NOT ACCEPT HIS ARGUMENTS IN THE COMMENTS BOX, THIS IS AGAINST THE RULES, YOU GET LIMITED CHARACTERS JUST LIKE YOU GET LIMITED TIME IN ACTUAL DEBATE! THIS IS UNFAIR TO ME!

but if you allow this, ethical behavior is best because we are questioning the behavior of the cops, and it was moral becasue the cops were attacked first so they could attack back.

And now im running out of chars, but... Remember, he has no non-biased sources to believe, i have conceded riot defs and he conceded that riots justify action. so now you need to vote for me, because i have proven it was a riot and that riots justify the action

-AJN0592
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Maybe it tells you that because, I don't know, it wants you to KNOW you are posting in an unusual area?

Nowhere in the sites terms of service does it contain this, and the terms of service are what users agree to, not little comment box warnings.

If "Fairness" were the reason for such a warning, they would include it in the terms of service, or at least include the words "You're not being fair" in the warning. They do nothing of the sort, thus, the facts contradict your views.

And an "argument" that one might attempt to "submit" means a round of argument. Not a distinct, logical gestalt, a specific argument, but a round of argument. A whole one. One does not "submit" a logical argument qua such, one simply argues it, thus, you are clearly equivocating.

"so i wonder why it would do this???"

I already told you

"it would be unfair if there was one person allowed to post more info in the space... "

I already explained how silly that idea is. It's not unfair if you both get to do it, and you do.

"its the same concept as timing a speech in actual debate, i"

No, it is not the same concept. There is a specific reason for this. A debate, formal, spoken, has a specific amount of time before everyone has to go and forget the argument. People have to eat, sleep, go to school, work, etc. The amount of time is limited, thus, they have to split it. This is NOT TRUE of debate.org. There are no space limits inherent to the medium, and the time limits are only to make sure people are still paying attention once in a while (three days to make an argument is plenty). You can write potentially on and on and on. No debater is capable of testing that limit with debate alone, there is only so much to say, the amount of room is unimaginable by comparison. Bandwidth not so much, but humans can't type that fast :D.

You have clearly demonstrated an inability to pay attention and realize which arguments have been addressed.
Posted by ajn0592 9 years ago
ajn0592
Wow, you talk about an "addendum to an arguement" all of the arguements posted in the comment box were new, but im done with this.

the thing is whenever a person involved with the debate tries to post a comment it says this: "STOP!!! You are the Contender in this debate and are about to add a comment. If you are attempting to submit an argument, cancel this request and scroll up to the red box near the top of the debate page", so it specifically tells you NOT to post any arguement in the comment box regardless of whether or not it is an addendum or a full arguement, it doesnt specify, it just says any arguement... so i wonder why it would do this??? Maybe for something called Fairness? it would be unfair if there was one person allowed to post more info in the space... its the same concept as timing a speech in actual debate, it is to limit the 2 sides to an equal level of time (or in this case space) so that it is fair for both teams.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Also, server concerns aside, it's possible to slow some viewer's computers if you input too much information in the box, by making a giant page... that is, possible, unless there is a character limit, and then still possible but far more difficult.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"answer me this then... why is there a character limit to begin with then?"

To make it harder to attack the server by inputting a massive amount of data in the box. Most sites have a character limit. If you have to take it to comments every time you want to add more, you'll have to deal with the security code, and that means attacking the server manually, which is much more of a pain in the arse from a malicious user's standpoint.

"and actually when you go to post a comment as a debater in the round it specifically tells you to stop and not post if you are posting an argument to the round."

An argument. Not a part of an argument, not an addendum to an argument, an independent argument. It's to remind people of the section is all. It tells you not to place your WHOLE ARGUMENT there, an argument as such. It doesn't tell you anything about putting part of it there.
Posted by ajn0592 9 years ago
ajn0592
answer me this then... why is there a character limit to begin with then? makes no sense that it would be there in the first place... and actually when you go to post a comment as a debater in the round it specifically tells you to stop and not post if you are posting an argument to the round... so yes, he was told not to, but whatever... it doesnt really bother me anymore.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
DO NOT ACCEPT HIS ARGUMENTS IN THE COMMENTS BOX, THIS IS AGAINST THE RULES, YOU GET LIMITED CHARACTERS JUST LIKE YOU GET LIMITED TIME IN ACTUAL DEBATE! THIS IS UNFAIR TO ME!"

This is nonsense. No such rule is present. And you can do it too, so it's not unfair.
Posted by ajn0592 9 years ago
ajn0592
By a good debate i meant fun and it actually made me think, A Lot! It was one of the more fun debates i have been in for a while!
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Dont listen to me I just hate not having the last word...
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I disagree. That was a horrible debate. You ignored all my points, put words in my mouth, and turned random quotes into facts. But oh well...
Posted by ajn0592 9 years ago
ajn0592
Good Round Harlan! That was a good debate!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ajn0592 7 years ago
ajn0592
Harlanajn0592Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by L_iS_4_Legend 9 years ago
L_iS_4_Legend
Harlanajn0592Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Harlanajn0592Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Harlanajn0592Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03