The Instigator
danil
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
DRVD
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This House Would Arm The Police

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...
danil
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,240 times Debate No: 42128
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

danil

Pro

This house would arm the police, because it is necessary and vital for the police in such way that they can protect and defend themselves fromthe attacants. If we were under attack, who would protect us without army? The best defense is the offence! And it comes the same as the military, they are armed and because it is necessary, they don"t hurt innocent people and as I previously said it is just to get scared from the attacants, this way they protect us and nobody gets hurt.
DRVD

Con

I believe that in some way you are right, they need to defend themselves, but how can we inspire peace if we react with violence? How can we stop violence, if we act with the same violence? This is why I believe police should not be armed because the very symbolism of arming police officers causes the inspiration of more violence and it becomes and endless cycle of violence.
Debate Round No. 1
danil

Pro

In my opinion, how else can they defend themselves or others from an armed attacant? Police even in countries with very low crime people are armed. It would definitely help to stop a lot of would be criminals. And also, in my opinion I would definitively feel more safe when the police is armed, and also it is giving more violence, but in the way to scare people and encourage them not to carry guns or army!
DRVD

Con

But don't you think that the symbolism of having people armed that can easily be corrupted can result in a more harmful way?I believe that this lower crime rates you talk about are because the police is not as present and not as violent as police in other countries is.Yes there should be some protection for the people, but not in the way of a man wearing or holding a gun against you,that is not how civilization should work. Instead of arming the police we should inspire peace in a nonviolent way
Debate Round No. 2
danil

Pro

Yes, I do think that this might transmitt a message in a violent way, but don"t you think it is necessary for us the people, and for them as the police that they need something to defend with themselves? Imagine you been in a violent situation, and you can"t defend yourselve? The only way you can attack violence is by more violence, there"s no other way! And even though we should transmitt peace, it shall come after the war. It has always happened.
DRVD

Con

You could not be more wrong, by creating violence we are not stopping it we are just creating more. We should first start by educating our people, our citizens, in nonviolent place, and this would be the most favorable thing we as a government could do to create peace and maintain it. I am not saying we should do this change in a very fast way it is something that should be done gradually, but we must start now.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DRVD 3 years ago
DRVD
That's why nobody asked you!
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
I really don't care what your house rules are...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
danilDRVDTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side provided sources. The Pro side has given reasons why the police should be armed. The Con side has failed to refute Pro's claims or provide a valid counterargument.