Instigator / Pro
7
1531
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#2926
should police be allowed to use lethal weapons/torture
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Abdulmalik
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
6
1469
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Description
In this debate we talk about how police should or shouldn't be allowed to use lethal force or violence . Many political problem are occurring because police's use of lethal weapons and violence.
Round 1
Richard j Daley oncesaid ‘The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preservedisorder’ in my opinion, police should be allowed to use lethal force andtorture in order preserve peace.
Now for my point
They say fight fire with fire so, if someoneposes lethal threat to the community, then why can’t the police respond withthe same force? Its only logical, right? for example, if there is a group ofterrorists, drug dealers, or a mafia who try to disturb the peace cycle; thepolice must take action. Peace and freedom, these things wouldn’t exist if itweren’t for the drastic measures the police take everday. Ibelieve it is necessary for police to be allowed to torture criminals forinformation. If a gang member is caught, they can squeeze information out ofhim to catch the rest.
Point 1: Why use lethal force when they can use non-lethal but just as effective weapons.
Technology today is the most advanced it has ever been yet the abuse of lethal weapons by police is at an all-time high, with over 1000 deaths every year caused by lethal force. Which if u think of it is very irrational and not safe nor smart. With the advancement of technology, engineers have created advanced weapons that are not lethal and as dangerous but just as effective as lethal force and weaponry.
How would you feel if someone close to you got really hurt or died because of the abuse of weaponry
Some inventions that could replace lethal weapons for the better are:
Ammunition
Explosives
Gases and sprays
Sticky foam
Area denial
Riot gun
Electroshock weapons
Directed-energy weapon
Links I used for my research:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/us/police-use-of-force-legislation/index.htm
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon
Technology today is the most advanced it has ever been yet the abuse of lethal weapons by police is at an all-time high, with over 1000 deaths every year caused by lethal force. Which if u think of it is very irrational and not safe nor smart. With the advancement of technology, engineers have created advanced weapons that are not lethal and as dangerous but just as effective as lethal force and weaponry.
How would you feel if someone close to you got really hurt or died because of the abuse of weaponry
Some inventions that could replace lethal weapons for the better are:
Ammunition
Explosives
Gases and sprays
Sticky foam
Area denial
Riot gun
Electroshock weapons
Directed-energy weapon
Links I used for my research:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/30/us/police-use-of-force-legislation/index.htm
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon
Round 2
(counter argument)
Hakmi said thattechnology is advancing so we won’t need to use lethal weapons. The same logic can apply with defense, forexample a rubber bullet can’t do anything against a bullet proof vest and apepper spray can’t do anything if the person wears goggles. Even thoughtechnology is advancing we can’t maintain peace if we don’t use lethal weapons.
Hakmi said thattechnology is advancing so we won’t need to use lethal weapons. The same logic can apply with defense, forexample a rubber bullet can’t do anything against a bullet proof vest and apepper spray can’t do anything if the person wears goggles. Even thoughtechnology is advancing we can’t maintain peace if we don’t use lethal weapons.
Forfeited
