The Instigator
tepman45
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jimmybush
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

bounty hunting

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  
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: 12/9/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,994 times Debate No: 192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

tepman45

Pro

i am very much agreed on bounty hunting.1)because it can help stop terrorism;2)it can save unemployed people from hunger and poverty;and 3)it also can reduce terror attacks.i suggest that we give bounty hunters license and guns.They can help us crush the terrorists.
jimmybush

Con

When America drafted its founding documents, it based them on the belief that all people should be free and secure in their persons and in their lives. Because we believe in these values, our system of law enforcement has been carefully structured as to be able to protect to the upmost the aforementioned values. Pursuant to those values, law enforcement officials must have good cause for entering private domiciles or businesses, or for apprehending or detaining individuals. The way the law is set up protects people from unreasonable incursion into their lives by the government, or from citizens who take aggressive action towards others. Legalization of bounty hunting jeopardizes the careful structuring of our laws, and means that free reign will be given to people who lack legitimate authority. When someone is given a license to hunt down and apprehend individuals, especially while using a weapon, great responsibiliy is required. Law enforcement officials go through extensive training and must abide by federal, state, and municiple laws, in addition to department policies. Individual citizens invested with the power of being bounty hunters would not have to abide by such rules. This means that there is a reasonable doubt that bounty hunters would act judiciously or appropriately in their conduct. This would mean a lack of legal protection for citizens, and is frightening for any individal citizen because it means no one can be guaranteed safety, even in their own homes any more. Furthermore, there is no reasonable belief that bounty hunters will stop terrorism. Noting the fact that there has been no "terrorist attack" against the US since 9/11/01, I would deduce that the law enforcement community, and their increased emphasis on terrorism prevention and elimination has kept us safe from terrorist activity. Consequently, bounty hunters aren't necissary to stop terrorims, and they would pose a greater threat to American peace and security than terrorism would. The negatives thus outweighing the benefits and bounty hunting should not be legalized.
Debate Round No. 1
tepman45

Pro

i didnt give any parameters so,it can be any where in the world mr.jimmybush.Site an example the philippines has terror attacks .These bounty hunters can crush not only terrorists but also criminals escaping from jail or people that is in the list of top criminals, like osama bin laden......
jimmybush

Con

Whether we are talking about America or not, I don't think my argument changes. Here is an excerpt from the Filipino constitution...
"We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution."
I will argue this has substantially the same aim as any legitimate constitution has. I would draw special attention to the phrase "democracy under the rule of law." By giving bounty hunters guns and free reign, the premise of rule under law is undermined. Free reign is still going to be given to people who lack legitimate authority, and the safety and justice which is due to Filipino citizens (as the constitution states) is put into jeopardy. If there are terrorist attacks in the Philippines, that much more than in the US, it makes me doubt even more that Bounty Hunters will be kept under control. If terrorism can't be stopped, then it is reasonable to believe that the government is too weak or ineffective to be able to regulate additional renegade actors within the state (namely bounty hunters). It is therefore my conclusion that Bounty Hunters in the Philippines might actually even cause more harm than in the US, and would continue to increase terroristic activity within the country rather than curbing it. Terrorism is a problem, and it needs to be stopped, but when non-state actors without legitimate international authority (such as the UN has) begin to take matters into their own hands, there is always more potential for chaos and disorder to occur. Bounty Hunting as well will not bring Usama Bin Laden to justice, as he is not reasonably expected to be in the Philippines. If bounty hunters were to begin crossing international borders to find him, there would be all manner of jurisdictional and legal disputes between nations, causing more confusion and headache, and not actually stopping any terrorist activity. I believe that my original argument, whether in regards to America or the Philippines still stands.
Debate Round No. 2
tepman45

Pro

tepman45 forfeited this round.
jimmybush

Con

Bounty Hunting bad. If anyone else wants to debate this topic, i'd be happy to take it up with them.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xanxus 2 years ago
Xanxus
tepman45jimmybushTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
tepman45jimmybushTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
tepman45jimmybushTied
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 schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
tepman45jimmybushTied
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