The Instigator
trippledubs
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Travniki
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,294 times Debate No: 22599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

trippledubs

Pro

Confront - Verbally address

Topic says it all. 1st Round Acceptance Only. Round forfeit = loss.
Travniki

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
trippledubs

Pro


1. Freedom of Speech


2. Christian obligation - You are your brother’s keeper, if you see someone suspicious lurking around, sure you could call the police, but just because they look suspicious doesn’t mean they deserve to have the police called on them. Why not ask them how they are doing? If your not a Christian replace it with the golden rule or some other altruistic model of behavior.


3. Neighborhood watch - Our nation is built on the strength of our citizens. Every day, we encounter situations calling upon us to be the eyes and ears of law enforcement. Not only does neighborhood watch allow citizens to help in the fight against crime, it is also an opportunity for communities to bond through service. The Neighborhood Watch Program draws upon the compassion of average citizens, asking them to lend their neighbors a hand. USAonWatch is the portal for training to assist law enforcement agencies and their communities, technical assistance, resource documents, watch stories, networking, and assistance to the field. http://www.usaonwatch.org...


Why not be the eyes, ears, and mouth of law enforcement? Sure, some might consider it harassment, but a random “Hey, how are you? Do you live around here?” kind of greeting makes everyone safer as would-be criminals know that this is not the neighborhood to rob. Why let your neighborhood go the way of the bad guys while the police do nothing, a little extra neighborly vigilance goes a long way.


Travniki

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen, on side opposite I stand for safer neighbourhoods and healthier interpersonal interaction between people living in close proximity to eachother.

I will be arguing that what pro suggests is a lesser form of the same evil that created the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

"They released the 911 call and it looks as if the neighborhood watch patrol man followed the teenager who was just carrying skittles and shot him because he looked "suspicious." The neighborhood watchman has called police 46 times in the past year. The boy was on his cell phone with a girl and reported that a strange man was following him."

While it is completely true that racism plays the main hand in this type of behaviour, the claim of an "inherent right to confront someone in your neighbourhood" facilitates this type of violence, territorial stupidity and intolerance.
Rebuttals:

1. Freedom of Speech
If this debate was specified to be in America, this point would hold merit, however the question of this debate isn't THAT someone has the right to confront, it's WHY, why they would choose to. Actions must be justified so this point holds no ground.

2. " Christian obligation"
What on earth does "suspicious" mean in this context? Most of the time this is just a display of prejudice. Mark Zimmerman, leader of the neighbourhood watch, and murderer of Trayvon Martin considered "suspicious behaviour" being an African-American. I agree-one should never call the police just because they happen to not like the way someone looks or acts, and one does not have the inherent right to confront someone in their neighbourhood just because they think someone might be looking to commit a crime-that's when we experience prejudice. How about I adopt Buddha's golden rule on this? "The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances".

3. "Neighbourhood Watch"

Thanks for that paragraph right out of Santorums handbook. The issue is this doesn't promote safer neighbourhoods, it promotes confrontation that has a high chance of leading to violence that wouldn't have happened if the home owner had kept to his own business without bothering everyone who looked like they might be a member of Al'Quaeda.

1. This creates unneeded Conflict
So what happens when people believe they have an inherent right to confront people in their neighbourhoods? On the large part nothing. Most people will just live their normal lives. But the select few of aggressive, territorial people who usually have some sort of prejudice will use it to harass innocent people. As seen with Trayvon Martin the inherent right to confrontation leads to acts of confrontation that have no grounds or reason, aggressive people will do it simply because they can, and for all the wrong reasons. There is no way to tell if someone is a criminal, no outward appearance-this fact largely cripples Pros case that the right to confront will lead to safer neighbourhoods.Again, it will lead to needless and frivolous confrontation.

2.When does someone have the right to confront someone?

I agree that when someone is doing something border line criminal-such as standing in the empty parking lot outside a school on a weekend, the right to confront exists. But that is because there is physical evidence. People only have the right to confront when there is physical evidence of trouble-doing, there is no inherent right.

There is no way to tell if someone is going to engage in criminal behaviour, so an inherent right to confront will only facilitate rashness, aggressiveness, territorial stupidity and racial profiling.
Debate Round No. 2
trippledubs

Pro

Thank you Con for your argument.


Even as kids we are taught that the first person to utilize violence has crossed the threshold from right to wrong. A confrontation is not inherently violence as con suggests.


My opponent speaks of pages out of handbooks, but must personally keep a copy of Rev. Al Sharptons, immediately pointing to a tragedy to justify their own narrative.


If this debate was specified to be in America, this point would hold merit, however the question of this debate isn't THAT someone has the right to confront, it's WHY, why they would choose to. Actions must be justified so this point holds no ground.


The question of this debate is whether you have the right to confront someone else in your neighborhood exactly as accepted by Con. Why they would choose to is beyond the scope of this debate as any human motivation could be used to justify a confrontation.


If it is a beautiful woman, she might be confronted by a bachelor, or a rapist, or a girl scout, or someone that needs directions. If it is the joker, he might be confronted by Batman, or a Jehova's Witness, or the self appointed neighborhood watch.


The debate is whether a person has the right to confront someone else. In a world where no one has that right, the world would be worse off. In that world even though innocent (and guilty) males in hoodies (and bell-bottoms) would get harassed less, so would criminals.


There are all kind of responses to confrontation. Responses range from silence, calling the police, running away, or the absolute wrong choice, which is violence.


What on earth does "suspicious" mean in this context? …


Suspicious is subjective, it is up to the individual. Suspiciousness is an extension of fear. Fear is felt, not rationalized. It is a survival instinct and it merits itself. Do we want our neighbors to confront suspicious people or hide from them?


I agree that when someone is doing something border line criminal-such as standing in the empty parking lot outside a school on a weekend, the right to confront exists. But that is because there is physical evidence. People only have the right to confront when there is physical evidence of trouble-doing, there is no inherent right.


How is standing in an empty parking lot physical evidence of trouble making?


Take the case of Jason Rosenbloom. Jason’s neighbor, Kenneth Allen, lodges a formal complaint against Rosenbloom for putting out 8 bags of trash instead of 6 that is the maximum allowed. Rosenbloom goes to Allen’s house to confront him about his complaint, Allen shoots him twice on the porch, as he is wearing shorts and flip flops, right there on the porch, and then gets away with it because of the stand your ground law.


http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com...


http://www.sptimes.com...


Rosenbloom was obviously the victim in this case, had the inherent right to confront his neighbor, and was denied that right by someone that chose violence over peaceful, albeit heated, confrontation. The person who chooses violence FIRST should be considered the aggressor, and the law should empower and protect the victim to meet that force with superior force.


Just because Kenneth Allen was being harassed by his neighbor, who was very obviously breaking the maximum trash limit rule, does not give him the right to shoot him down in cold blood.

Travniki

Con

I extend my arguments that didn't meet any rebuttal I could see.
I think a direct quote from my opponents speech will show why I have won this debate.
" Rosenbloom goes to Allen’s house to confront him about his complaint, Allen shoots him twice on the porch"

I have shown how most of the time confrontation is harrassment and racial profiling, but as Pro shows here, confrontation does not solve the problem, ever. It leads to more conflict.
If there is a robber walking around your neighbourhood, you don't walk up to him and say "HEY GET OFF MA LAWN".......................He'll probably shoot you or something.
" Do we want our neighbors to confront suspicious people or hide from them?"

I want my neighbour to decide whether the person is suspicious (and doesn't just happen to belong to a group the neighbour doesn't like), see if there is any actual evidence to show that the "suspicious" person is commiting a crime, and then call the police. If he confronts him a fight is likely to break out-whether the person is innocent or not.
When confrontation isn't the result of prejudice and racial profiling it leads to uneeded conflict. Don't confront, call the police.
Debate Round No. 3
trippledubs

Pro





Con, thank you for typing in words in under 3 days. Let me provide a point by point that I think will help illustrate some of my points and yours:


Recap:


My Points:


1. Freedom of speech means you can talk to anyone you want to


2. It is healthy and moral to want to protect your neighbors


3. Suspicion is something you feel, not rationalized. When someone notices something or someone wrong, they should be admired for acting against their own fears


4. The world is better where neighbors confront criminals instead of another passive course of action


5. Jason Rosenbloom was killed confronting his neighbor, this was wrong, as Jason should have had the right of confrontation. The law should protect the non-violent confronter, and punish the violent confrontee.


Cons Points:


1. Anyone that confronts someone is violent, prejudicial, and terroritial


2. All confrontation leads to violent conflict


3. If you feel suspicious of someone you are a racicst


4. Let the police (Government) handle anything of importance


Confrontation leads to safer neighborhoods as criminals will not have the opportunity to commit crimes. It is a right for people with a vested interest, the people that live in a neighborhood, to have the burden of making their neighborhood safe. This gives them the right to confront people they believe are suspicious. There is nothing dangerous or crazy about talking to your neighbors. Who is in the best position to prevent crimes of opportunity? The citizens that live there. Empower them with the law and legislate the right of verbal confrontation. Take away the legal protections of violent response to non-violent confrontation.


Travniki

Con

Thank you my dear, my very dear opponent.
I'm not going to give any more analysis on my own points. That would be redundant, I am not going to argue in circles, and I have seen no evidence that Pro has disproved that most confronations are a result of aggressivness and racial profiling.
Of course Pro summarized my points to make them look extremely hyperbolic and silly, but hey, debates aren't won on analysis and critical thinking anyways, it's all about summarizing your opponents points to make him look like a lunatic right?
Let's look at some assertions Pro has made.
"Suspicion is something you feel, not rationalized. When someone notices something or someone wrong, they should be admired for acting against their own fears"


So appearently Pro supports following irrational feelings. It is irational to get nervous when we see 4 African-American youths loitering on the street outside your house in the middle of the night, but we see how this suspicion is based on Racial Profiling. Plus, if those youths are up to no good, walking out and confronting them will probably get you mugged or attacked....
"Confrontation leads to safer neighborhoods as criminals will not have the opportunity to commit crimes."


Confronting a criminal doesn't stop the crime, it gets you punched in the face by someone who obviously doesn't follow the law and has no desire to be caught or hindered in his illegal actions....confrontation is just an unnecessary action that follows calling the police.
Here's what my entire case comes down to to all who bother to listen.
We see someone who we think looks suspicious. We verbally confront him or her. Three options come out of this.
A) The person is doing nothing wrong, we were wrong about our suspicions. They walk away feeling slightly harrassed.
B) The person is doing nothing wrong, but becomes agitated at being confronted. Conflict arises (See Pros sources for an example)
C) The person is planning on doing something wrong, but when he is "confronted" he plays innocent. Since he hasn't done anything wrong yet, no action can be taken against him, so he merely waits for the confronter to leave until comencing his criminal activity.
D) The person is planning on doing something wrong, and when confronted he gets angry, panicks and shoots his confronter in the face. (See Pros sources for an example). Maybe we should have left this one for the police?

So Basically I've shown why confrontation either leads to someone being harrassed and offended if they were doing no harm, and the confronter putting himself in a dangerous situation if the person they are confronting is up to no good.
Debate Round No. 4
trippledubs

Pro

trippledubs forfeited this round.
Travniki

Con

I oppose.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
Hey no problem.

I know exactly how you feel about this subject, it's almost like civil liberties are being thrown out the window every day in the spirit of a faux sort of "political corectness" and people are absolutely terrified of doing anything just in case it could be interpreted as racism, and that presents a real danger.
Posted by trippledubs 4 years ago
trippledubs
Sorry for the forfeit Travniki. Too much going on. Congrats.

I still feel like Zimmerman had the right to confront Trayvonn. I think it is very sad and unfortunate what happened, but I don't think the lesson of it should be to disempower or scare people from being constructively vigilant in their communities. It will be interesting to make a decision once all the facts come out. I think the debate could have went a lot better, but it was fun. Thanks again for accepting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.