Instigator / Con

Abdulrahman

1516

rating

debates

75.0%

won

Topic

#2883

Police should be allowed to use lethal force/torture (Point 3)

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Abdulrahman

Tags

Society

Parameters

Publication date: 03.14.2021 08:27AM
Last updated date: 03.22.2021 06:36AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

AhmadBawajeh

1484

rating

debates

25.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Abdulrahman

03.14.2021 08:32AM

Con

I support that the police should use compassion and the language of dialogue to win the friendship and respect of the people. The police must respect the public and be transparent in exercising power in order to win the people's trust. It must be at the service of the people and society. If the police were violent, the community would be afraid to seek help or protection. There are many examples of police violence, like according to a study from Amnesty School, hundreds of protestors, including at least 23 teenagers, were shot and killed by police during protests in Iran in November 2019.This act of violence can’t be used against civilians or protestors. When it comes to the use of lethal force, the principle of "protecting life" must be enshrined in the law, which means that it may only be used to protect against any upcoming danger of being killed or injured.

AhmadBawajeh

03.14.2021 10:10AM

Pro

The police should be allowed to use violence in cases like terrorism and war. Terrorism is the calculated use of violence to create fear in a population in order to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police. At the same time, police should take information and investigate from the enemies whether at war or with terrorism.

Round 2

Abdulrahman

03.15.2021 06:35AM

Con

Police are not used in wars and terrorism, that is what the military is for. The government, army, and special forces all use military tactics and techniques to combat terrorism. Therefore, the police are specialized in spreading security and peace in the city and preventing problems that occur such as theft and crimes in a peaceful, persuasive and non-violent way. Police officers and soldiers have very different responsibilities, which each must be aware of when the other takes over. And as I said, the police can only use violence against any upcoming danger of being killed or injured.

AhmadBawajeh

03.15.2021 06:36AM

Pro

Yesterdayhe said that he supports that the police should use compassionand the language of dialogue to win the friendship and respect of the people. Ifyou are dealing with terrorists,police should use force and torture if they don't have any knowledge aboutwhere the weapons or bombs are. The terrorist would not talk unless forced bythe police. Also, at war, if the enemy had capturedthe army or the police, they can investigate the enemy and find out where theguns and weapons are concealed. As a result, before the army or the policecompel them to talk, the enemy can remain silent. Many lives can be saved byusing force against the enemy. In this situation, it is acceptable to useviolence.

Bugsy460

03.19.2021 03:49AM

-->

@AhmadBawajeh

@Abdulrahman

RFD
I vote con because without BOP (Burden Of Proof) analysis, BOP falls on Pro to prove the resolution true. This means that we look at his singular argument about how to handle terrorists and ask if it proves the resolution true. Con shows that terrorists aren't handled by the police and Pro doesn't answer this, making it a good Con argument.

Notes
Pro
Don't put all your eggs in one basket and rely the entire debate on one argument. Also, add sources hyperlinked into the debate.

Con
Don't forget to extend your arguments you made in the first round. Pro didn't answer them, but you still need to point out that they dropped them or you end up dropping them to.

Bugsy460

03.19.2021 03:45AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

RFD in Comments

Theweakeredge

03.15.2021 06:50AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument:
Con's argument was essentially never refuted, Pro never even attempted to rebuke Con's points on the role of police officers in the community, and instead only talked about how Police might act in cases of war or terrorism; however, Con correctly pointed out that there are people literally specially trained to deal with that situation, not the police.

Con's actual argument was decently solid - they used the key principle that the police are used to protect the public, and being violent would undermine that duty - this argument in the first round solidly fulfilled Con's BoP - and seeing as Pro never actually refuted the point - Con easily wins on arguments.

Pro you never sold me on the point of terrorism mostly because you never even attempted to respond to your opponent - repeating the same argument over and over after your opponent has already rebuked it is not very effective at convincing me of your resolution - and Con you did a good job with the starting argument and refuting Pro's points; however, if they actually had responded they could have very easily countered your position about what the duty of the police are - you should back that up a tad more next time with more sourcing and preferably a syllogism. A good starter debate though.