in order to prevent illegal logging and poaching this house supports vigilante actions
Debate Rounds (3)
vigilante comes from the Spanish word vigilare meaning~ to keep watch~. a vigilante is someone who gets together with a group of a like-minded people to protect their property or local community. these type of actions are generally taken when its felt that the police or government in general aren't providing sufficient protection and people need to make a stand to protect themselves and their property.
so by my starting paragraph this debate is mainly about vigilantes and their actions against illegal logging and poaching.
vigilante actions on how to stop illegal logging and poaching:
physicist and engineer Tropher white , founder of the rain forest connection (vigilante group) he believes that he got a solution , and its all about smartphones , your smartphone to be precise -the ones your probably throwing away or trading in- creative use of up-cycled android smartphones powered by flexible solar panels is technology that can stop illegal logging and poaching on the spot.
that's a bold statement , but this idea could actually work in fact . it does work , as a RFC earlier pilot program in the forest of western Sumatra has already proved.
the proof that this idea would fly came on the very first day the initial project began operations in Sumatra in June 2013 . 4 phones , hidden within 135 hectares of the Kalawit Gibbon sanctuary reserve forest , picked up the unmistakable sounds of chain saws . authorities responded -and kept responding for two weeks- eventually , the loggers took the hint and departed the area . as White recently told scientific American. after a year they have not returned. Now that's a victory!
in the end this whole thing wouldn't been done without any vigilantism actions
If you do not have lawful jurisdiction, who is to say that you should be listened to? Vigilantes do not know law, and they do not know specific consequences for breaking specific laws. If they were to run around in the Amazon shooting or maiming everyone that is part of the illegal logging operations, then that would be murder! If you lack authority, then the only way to make someone comply is with a gun, and no one deserves to lose their life because they are cutting down trees.
Vigilantes are very hard to control and have a different way of judgement.
Instead of having vigilantes, we need a better police force and a better judicial system. Like I said, this does not occur in the United States, it occurs in 3rd world nations that do not have a properly funded police force or their police force is corrupt.
n_u_h_a forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PericIes 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: My opinions on the subject are irrelevant, as I am looking at the debate objectively, so I do not need to explain the first two points. Pro forfeited a round, so conduct goes to Con. Pro had plenty of spelling and grammatical errors, such as "but vigilante actions got us handled" in the first paragraph. Didn't capitalize the first letter of the first word, and on top of that used a dependent clause as its own sentence. This is but one example of such linguistic negligence. Arguments go to Con because Pro based their entire argument off of the definition of the Spanish root of "vigilante," not off of the definition of the English word in question. Furthermore, Pro advocates enforcing the law with illegal action, which is hypocritical and a fallacy. Neither side used sources, so that point is a tie.
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.