All countries should abolish police

I would like if we lived in anarchy.

what if we all had guns? seriously, are you trolling? i thought this site was serious about debating. police officers are trained for these situations. sure, there are costs, but we need them to uphold the law.

If someone hurt your mom, what would you do? You'd want someone to catch them andd make sure they pay for what they did, right?

if we actually get rid of cops, who's gonna handle crimes like murder? it'd be chaotic without anyone to enforce laws and protect people. yes alright, cops aren't perfect but we rely on them to keep society safe and ensure justice. without a structured system for law enforcement you'd have more danger?

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SocraticGregarian96 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: There is no country without law

>Reason for Mod Action:

I realize that this is a debate with concessions from both sides and several forfeits from one, which generally means it isn't moderated. However, when a voter decides to award points to a side that full forfeits the debate, the voter must provide some reasoning for why they are doing so. The voter awarded all 7 points without explanation beyond their own personal opinion. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************

Can you please do something about @WyIted? he's nothing but an insufferable troll.

>These people have no obligation to read your debate. It should at least be fun to read

Again, troll, this is a platform for professional debating. If "fun" means being an insufferable degenerate in your books, then go somewhere else. Btw you just admitted that you don't even read the debates.

"Dude, if you think about making a topic where you assert married men should stop eating CORN and in the said topic, you go on a ridiculous and related Vulguar rant about PORN as a "Serious effort." Then you have to be either extremely uneducated or simply don't know what a debate is."

These people have no obligation to read your debate. It should at least be fun to read

First of all, that's not what a concession is. A concession is when you admit the opposite side has a point. For example, say we were debating about cigarettes, and I, as Con, said that they should be banned cause they caused cancer. Then Pro says in their argument that they admit smoking causes cancer, but rebuttals that banning cigarettes isn't possible. That a concession because Pro concedes to my point that smoking risks cancer.

Me saying I won't participate because Pro told me that they would not take the debate seriously as the topic was a joke is NOT a concession because there is no point that they made that I agree with.

>You accepted my debate and I gave more effort than him and it was you who chose not to take my corn debate seriously. I made a fun topic, but I made a serious effort, admittedly not my hardest effort but a serious one and you bowed out.

Dude, if you think about making a topic where you assert married men should stop eating CORN and in the said topic, you go on a ridiculous and related Vulguar rant about PORN as a "Serious effort." Then you have to be either extremely uneducated or simply don't know what a debate is.

>The above quote is a concession, and he likely gave you very little effort because you gave him very little.

I know you troll and thus uneducated and, therefore, probably don't realize the stupidity in trying to establish falsehoods in a situation where everything is literally readable. Nevertheless, even you have to realize that such a lie will not work when we write with Pro flat out, stating they won't make an effort no matter what I did due to the topic being a JOKE. But yes, try to blame me and spout as much WRITTEN nonsense as you want. It won't make it true, nor will it make you less foolish for both lying and trying to justify your toxic actions.

>You also insult the mods in R1, so you are asking them for a favorable view of a vote in a Grey area after insulting them, so good luck with that

Never asked for a favorable vote, so that's another lie that you even prove by a quotation of my words (side note: Acting stupid on purpose doesn't make you cool. It just makes you stupid); I only said I would report you for breaking the rules, which isn't the definition of a "favor" btw. Also, I never insulted them. I merely critiqued at the fact that they let toxic stupidy when this app used to be serious. A position you only help further prove with your stupid actions.

You also insult the mods in R1, so you are asking them for a favorable view of a vote in a Grey area after insulting them, so good luck with that

"My opponent has made it clear that this is not a real topic and has refused to take the debate seriously. I therefore refuse to participate in the debate."

The above quote is a concession, and he likely gave you very little effort because you gave him very little.

You accepted my debate and I gave more effort than him and it was you who chose not to take my corn debate seriously. I made a fun topic, but I made a serious effort, admittedly not my hardest effort but a serious one and you bowed out.

Dude, you are a troll. Clearly, by your admission, Pro is disrespected and, therefore, did not deserve the better conduct vote, especially after admitting that they were not interested in participating in the debate. Secondly, I never made any concession whatsoever. I have reported your vote and will be reporting you to the mods very soon,

While best Korea did disrespect the debate. American debater is incapable of a quality argument

Police are just people with guns. There is no any guarantee that police does a better job than armed people protecting themselves. Police doesnt even stop most crimes. It just responds to punish after crime was already committed. So if someone attacks you, its very unlikely cops will even get there in time to protect you. However, since police enforces laws which people wouldnt normally pay to enforce, it effectively wastes money, since it forces people to pay money for something they wouldnt pay for if given a choice. So police is not cost effective in terms of enforcing laws, since it enforces laws people wouldnt want to pay to enforce. However, police also demands an entire justice system and prison system to be created, thus it wastes money while not exactly preventing bad things, since criminals in prison can still do bad things. It is much more simple to simply give people guns so everyone keeps everyone in check. This would save money, thus even reduce poverty, so people would even have less reason to resort to crime.

Imagine if everyone had guns. At the moment, to get a gun in the USA, you must either have a license or steal a gun which is a crime. If everyone had guns, anyone could get a hold of them and much easier than before, so crimes where guns are involved would multiply and there wouldn't be any police to deal with it, so we're sacrificing criminality to save money

If everyone owns a gun, everyone will protect themselves according to own interest. So money is saved in the process, and people become more skilled with protecting themselves, where now they rely on police to a greater extent. So schools and banks would be protected by those with guns and who are willing to protect them.

Yeah, but who's gonna make sure these guns are used for protection instead of for school shootings. Do you mean to say we must equip all teachers with guns in case a school shooting happens? This is pretty absurd. Also, when a bank is being robbed, people won't barge in there and stop the robbery, they have to contact someone. Who do they contact? The police or a sheriff's department which functions exactly like a police station.

People usually have guns for protection, at least in USA.

i mean we have to be protected one way or the other so i can't imagine a world without some form of police

I dont understand why he accepted a debate if he is not going to participate in it, but he still expects to somehow win. I mean, I can agree to a tie if he doesnt wanna debate, but I find it strange that he just quit.

He's actually being a more serious debater than you at this point. While the topic is extreme and a little absurd, he's still making some good points about it.

I actually wouldnt mind that much if current laws were abolished, even tho it wouldnt last that long. People create their own laws very quickly, and the ones making laws in absence of law would likely be those with guns. But if everyone has a gun, then I guess it would balance itself out.

The most likely outcome for such an enforcement (if it is possible to begin with, which is, I think, not) is that nations will just dissolve "police" as a separate entity and make all of them a part of the military for example and then present them to the world as "they are just specialized troops." When we dissolve a company, the employees ought to go somewhere, and they don't just disappear.

This is roughly the opposite of what Germany did in the '30s. Not saying it is a good idea, it isn't, but it is possible.

What is the easiest way to prevent people from drinking "Water"? You put stuff in water so it is something else (such as "tea", "coffee", "fruit punch", "dilute hydrochloric acid", and "cyanide solution") so that nothing that is drank can be classified as "water".

I guess you forfeit the debate. Thats okay. Free win for me.

Okay, but dont expect lots of effort on my part. Maybe some effort.

I am not here to act like a 10-year-old. If we are going to debate, then it is gonna have to be taken as seriously. Otherwise, I will not participate.

If people have a problem with accepting this debate, I can write in description that its a troll debate.

Okay, maybe its a bit funny.

I consider it more of a comedy to be Con on this. Really, being Pro isnt that funny on this topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement

The description should probably mention the comedy angle.