Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#5693
There's no such thing as police brutality.
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...
acheam
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Greetings. A newcomer . This is an introduction.
Before we proceed, I'm taking a survey on serious participants.
What drove you to accept to debate this topic?
What was or is your impression on this matter?
Thanks and welcome.
Greetings! Thank you for the warm introduction.
I accepted the opportunity to debate this topic because it's a crucial and contentious issue that impacts many lives. Debating such topics allows for a deeper exploration of the arguments and helps to understand the different perspectives involved.
My impression of the matter is that police brutality is a real and significant problem that has been documented across various societies. It involves the use of excessive or unnecessary force by law enforcement officers and is often highlighted in discussions about justice, human rights, and law enforcement practices.
I'm looking forward to an engaging and thoughtful debate on this topic. Thanks for having me!
I accepted the opportunity to debate this topic because it's a crucial and contentious issue that impacts many lives. Debating such topics allows for a deeper exploration of the arguments and helps to understand the different perspectives involved.
My impression of the matter is that police brutality is a real and significant problem that has been documented across various societies. It involves the use of excessive or unnecessary force by law enforcement officers and is often highlighted in discussions about justice, human rights, and law enforcement practices.
I'm looking forward to an engaging and thoughtful debate on this topic. Thanks for having me!
Round 2
There's no such thing as police brutality.
By definition, law enforcement officers which are police officers enforce the law. It is an oxymoron that an officer which enforces the law at the same time doesn't.
As far as I know it's a contradiction to what the law is for which is to keep civility and order. Officers protect and serve the people in emergency or police related type matters.
To use the expression "police brutality" is a perpetuated colloquial usage of a phrase. It is a misnomer just like the phrase civil war.
Is anything about a war, killing folks and destruction civil?
Oh it's civil because it is happening in your own backyard. Bloodshed and slaughter is bloodshed and slaughter when you get down to it.
There is no law I know that mandates undue force and or brute force.
Once a police officer acts outside of what is to be enforced, that person is no longer an officer. The person is no longer operating within the law. If you are a Catholic or Christian or Muslim, once you stop practicing what makes you one to belong to any of these sects, you're no longer of.
That's another point. Many people say they are something they're not even practicing to make them that but yet still call themselves that.
You can't be a practitioner without practicing.
So this points us back to the police. People tend to still refer to individuals that don't practice justice as them that enforce justice.
Mr. Neely Fuller Jr. put it this way. A person with the title police officer that acts to mistreat you based on the color of your skin is actually a "race soldier".
Basically a " white " supremacist. That is basically the identification of these "race soldiers", ain't that right?
So it's not a police officer. A person with the title doctor that performs euthanasia or even abortions of all kinds is not a doctor. A doctor in origin is to heal. Not treat with drugs easing the symptoms to live life drugged up or drugged into lethal sleep.
I can yield right here. For more information regarding " race soldier", upon doing a search in the Google search engine, urban dictionary website shows the following:
"Race Soldier
Any white racist who shows an unusually diabolical zeal to engage in the practice of white supremacy; these actions are likely to but do not necessarily include direct violence against black people or people who are not white.
Its likely that race soldiers will violently oppose any civil unrest stems from the police brutality protests
by MrTekKnowledge June 19, 2020"
Don't protest police. This is whom you call to your aid, your defense and protection. Someone posing and impersonating an officer is revealed once we get to exclaiming "police brutality". We see this person is just an imposter.
Thank you for your detailed argument. You've provided an interesting perspective, one that challenges the common understanding of police brutality by questioning the very use of the term itself. I'll now proceed with a rebuttal to your points.
Rebuttal:
Your argument hinges on the idea that a police officer who uses excessive force is no longer an officer and therefore cannot be guilty of police brutality. While philosophically intriguing, this perspective doesn’t align with how law enforcement operates or how society defines police misconduct.
- Definition and Reality of Police Brutality: Police brutality is widely recognized both legally and socially. According to the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the use of force must be proportional to the situation, and excessive force is illegal. Police brutality refers to actions by officers that violate these standards, and numerous studies document the prevalence of such behavior. In the U.S., for example, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice frequently investigates police departments for patterns of brutality (source: DOJ Civil Rights Division).
- Contradiction Does Not Negate Reality: You argue that it is an oxymoron for law enforcers to break the law, but paradoxes often exist in real life. For example, just because a doctor may cause harm (e.g., through malpractice) doesn't mean they aren't a doctor. It means they are failing to fulfill their professional duty. Similarly, an officer using excessive force remains an officer—they are simply abusing their power.
- Race Soldiers vs. Police Officers: You mentioned Neely Fuller Jr.'s term "race soldier" to describe individuals who enforce racial supremacy rather than law and order. While this term may help distinguish personal biases from professional duty, these "race soldiers" are still operating within the framework of law enforcement. Their actions are viewed as police brutality because, by the title and power they wield as officers, they have the capacity to oppress.
- Misnomer Argument: Comparing "police brutality" to the phrase "civil war" as a misnomer is an interesting point. However, this does not change the real-world consequences of police misconduct. Words and phrases evolve to reflect societal realities. "Police brutality" may be a colloquial term, but it accurately reflects the abusive behaviors of officers who use their power to harm civilians.
- Accountability in Law Enforcement: In your analogy to religious practitioners, you argue that one stops being a practitioner when they stop adhering to the principles of their faith. However, this analogy fails when applied to law enforcement. When a police officer acts outside of the law, they do not stop being a police officer; they become a police officer who is guilty of misconduct. Laws exist to hold officers accountable for their actions, which would be unnecessary if they were no longer considered police once they broke the law.
To Conclude: While I respect the nuanced way you frame police brutality as a misnomer and differentiate those who uphold justice from those who misuse their authority, society recognizes that those in law enforcement can and do commit acts of brutality. These acts are part of a broader discussion on reforming and improving accountability within the police force.
I’m looking forward to hearing your response.
Round 3
"Your argument hinges on the idea that a police officer who uses excessive force is no longer an officer and therefore cannot be guilty of police brutality."
That's not correct. When the person holding the title is using excessive force or undue, unjust force, the person is not an officer but is of course mistaken for a law enforcement officer . The person is not an officer at the time of doing such a thing. So there is no" when a police officer does this". That's the incorrect order right there from the start.
*While philosophically intriguing, this perspective doesn’t align with how law enforcement operates or how society defines police misconduct."
Well define it. What is police misconduct?
Is it not issuing a ticket when required and just issuing a warning?
This is the only way a police officer can still be an enforcer without being an oxymoron.
"For example, just because a doctor may cause harm (e.g., through malpractice) doesn't mean they aren't a doctor. It means they are failing to fulfill their professional duty. Similarly, an officer using excessive force remains an officer—they are simply abusing their power."
This is a poor and invalid analogy. A medical malpractice situation is not an abuse of power. Who abuses their power? Is it police officers or "race" soldiers?
If you say police abuse their power, why would I ever call on them?
I wouldn't. Police are the ones who serve and protect in just due power. Now we know society continues this backwards paradoxical rhetoric. That's why we're having a debate about it. Your position is to keep the backwards rhetoric and my position is to elevate our minds out of this box and start thinking logically about the words we choose to use.
So that's why I would call the police because police officers don't abuse their power. Don't confuse actual police officers and people in name sake.
" "race soldiers" are still operating within the framework of law enforcement. Their actions are viewed as police brutality because, by the title and power they wield as officers, they have the capacity to oppress."
I don't believe you know what a "race" soldier is. I don't know what's meant by "still operating within the framework of law enforcement.".
If you mean wearing the title as an imposter, that is correct. Another thing Mr. Neely Fuller explains is to avoid confusion. Don't call "race" soldiers police officers or say that they are. You'll be confusing the two up.
I'm not calling so called race soldiers for help. I'm calling police officers because by definition they are the ones who help you. But according to you which is a reflection of society that says police officers are brutal.
Try explaining this to a six year old person. Sometimes we have to go back to our primitive state or elementary state where things were more simplistically consistent.
"they have the capacity to oppress."
Police do not have the capacity to oppress. It's oppressors that do. So you can either say oppressors with the title police or just plain oppressors.
This is the same thing with religion. People say they are Christian or Catholic but don't actually practice the religion. It's the same misnomer.
" "Police brutality" may be a colloquial term, but it accurately reflects the abusive behaviors of officers who use their power to harm civilians."
What is a police officer?
"When a police officer acts outside of the law, they do not stop being a police officer; they become a police officer who is guilty of misconduct. "
Oh ok so what is a police officer? Who is a police officer? Who would be one? Is it one that practices enforcement of law?
"Laws exist to hold officers accountable for their actions, which would be unnecessary if they were no longer considered police once they broke the law."
You can consider them anything you want. If you just follow behind society on whatever, consider them based on whatever society says. While you consider them police, are they actually police?
The law will be used to prosecute any illegality so we don't have to worry about a professional civil status . Although, depending on the power of how much the "race" soldiers or "white" supremacists have, minorities ought not hold their breath .
"While I respect the nuanced way you frame police brutality as a misnomer and differentiate those who uphold justice from those who misuse their authority, society recognizes that those in law enforcement can and do commit acts of brutality. "
You can either continue to conform to societal convention in these colloquial terms or reject the confusion or accept the oxymoron while acknowledging based on the way I laid out these terms, you can see the antithetical nature in language but cling to conventional language.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and the way you’ve clarified your position. You’ve pointed out an important distinction in your argument: that someone who commits acts of brutality is no longer a police officer, but rather an imposter or “race soldier.” Let me address these points more carefully.
Rebuttal (Including Tyreek Hill Case, NFL Player):- Who Is a Police Officer? You argue that someone who engages in brutality is no longer a police officer and should not be recognized as such. However, legally and socially, the title of "police officer" is still applied to individuals who hold that position, even during instances of misconduct. A recent example is the Tyreek Hill incident, which garnered major media attention. Hill, a Black man, was subject to excessive force by police officers during a routine traffic stop. The officers involved were suspended for their actions, but they were still referred to as police officers during the reporting of the case, including by major outlets like CNN and NBC News. This underscores that misconduct does not erase their title; rather, it reflects a failure to uphold their duty.
The Tyreek Hill case illustrates a key point: the officers were still in uniform, acting under their authority as law enforcement, when they engaged in excessive force. Society calls this "police brutality" because these individuals were in the role of officers, even if their actions were unjust. The law doesn’t strip them of their title during their actions—it holds them accountable afterward (source: NBC News coverage of Tyreek Hill case). - Misuse of Power vs. Misnomer: You argue that the term "police brutality" is a misnomer because it applies to those who no longer behave as police officers should. However, this language is crucial to understanding how the system works. In the Tyreek Hill case, the officers used excessive force, which led to calls for their suspension and an investigation into their behavior. But throughout the process, they were recognized as police officers who misused their power. The distinction you make, while philosophically valid, doesn’t align with how the legal and societal structures operate. The law recognizes that police officers can abuse their power, and the term "police brutality" is used to describe such misconduct.
- Race Soldiers vs. Police Officers: You cite Neely Fuller Jr.’s term "race soldier" to distinguish between those who misuse their authority and true officers of the law. While this term may clarify things conceptually, society and the law still recognize these individuals as police officers. In the Tyreek Hill case, the officers were suspended for their actions, and an internal investigation was launched. However, they were still recognized as law enforcement officers in the media and in legal proceedings because they held that official position when the brutality occurred. This is why it’s important to continue addressing police brutality within the framework of law enforcement, rather than creating separate categories for those who misuse their power (source: CNN).
- Clarifying the Role of Police: You argue that real police officers, by definition, do not oppress, and that only oppressors do. However, recent cases like Tyreek Hill show that individuals in police positions can indeed oppress through misuse of authority. This is why societies have oversight mechanisms to hold officers accountable for such behavior. The fact that the officers were suspended highlights the reality that they were still viewed as police officers, and their misuse of power was recognized as brutality, not simply a one-off violation by non-police individuals.
- Language and Social Understanding: While I understand your desire for clearer terminology, the reality is that society uses terms like "police brutality" to address the very real abuses of power by those in law enforcement. The Tyreek Hill case serves as a perfect example of how the term is used to describe the actions of officers who fail to meet the standards expected of them. The need for accountability within law enforcement is not a rejection of police work as a whole but a call to improve it and prevent future abuses.
To end: The Tyreek Hill case highlights a key aspect of this debate: even when officers misuse their authority, they are still recognized as police officers, and their actions are identified as police brutality. Society uses this term not because it seeks to diminish the role of law enforcement, but because it aims to hold those who abuse their power accountable. Your perspective on rethinking the language is valuable, but the legal and social structures currently in place view this issue differently.
Looking forward to your response.
Round 4
"However, legally and socially, the title of "police officer" is still applied to individuals who hold that position, even during instances of misconduct. "
I'm not arguing against there not being a social way of saying things. I'm arguing and proving that the language used is not logically lining up with the way things actually are .
But it is a good point demonstrating the difference between what is based on social construct versus truthful veracity.
You the opposing side appear to continue to point out that this is socially this or that way. I'm not arguing that it isn't.
If you agree based on how I explained my point, then we can conclude.
"The distinction you make, while philosophically valid, doesn’t align with how the legal and societal structures operate. The law recognizes that police officers can abuse their power, and the term "police brutality" is used to describe such misconduct."
It doesn't have to align. That's not the point. If it aligned with the social construct, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
So being that you do agree with me that what I'm saying is valid, I think we can conclude actually.
"This is why it’s important to continue addressing police brutality within the framework of law enforcement, rather than creating separate categories for those who misuse their power (source: CNN)."
You can continue to use language that people are used to, to prevent further confusion, right. But if you know the language is backwards, you more than likely will do like people that often do, use air quotes or the phrase "so called".
So in my conversation I still may say "police brutality" but in quotes like I just did. I may say so called police brutality. People may or may not ask what I mean by so called but I can further explain just like I'm doing in this topic.
I can use the language that people will understand even when I know and select others know it's backwards.
"However, recent cases like Tyreek Hill show that individuals in police positions can indeed oppress through misuse of authority."
The question is, are they actually police? See you are still arguing from name sake, title sake and position sake.
But can you prove from nature sake?
If you do say that is the nature of a police officer, I'm going to ask you , what is a police officer ?
"While I understand your desire for clearer terminology, the reality is that society uses terms like "police brutality" to address the very real abuses of power by those in law enforcement. "
We're going in circles here. It's like you're stuck in the social construct not able to see beyond it. I think you do but you're holding backwards language as a standard. It is not , it is subjective language of a society.
So a police officer does not oppress or abuse. A person holding title or position as you say can do that. But having the title and actually being that are two different things. This is what you'll have to concede to.
"even when officers misuse their authority, they are still recognized as police officers, and their actions are identified as police brutality. Society uses this term not because it seeks to diminish the role of law enforcement, but because it aims to hold those who abuse their power accountable. "
You keep saying " hold accountable ".
A police officer is a law enforcer so he is held accountable for that already. That can't be diminished because an officer is what an officer is .
The Core Flaw in Your Argument:
Your entire stance is built around an idealized, philosophical distinction that does not reflect reality. You argue that someone who misuses their power as a police officer is no longer a police officer by nature. That may be philosophically interesting, but it’s a pure abstraction that doesn’t account for the real-world consequences of that misuse of power. Here’s where you’re fundamentally wrong:
- Power in the Real World: Titles like "police officer" are not just symbolic—they carry real power, whether or not you believe the person holding that title is acting according to the “true nature” of the role. It doesn't matter if you philosophically strip them of the title when they misuse their authority. The power is still there. When a person misuses that power—like in the case of Tyreek Hill—they are doing so with the authority vested in them by society. That’s what makes it police brutality.
Your argument is divorced from reality because it denies the practical implications of authority. In real life, when a person with a badge and gun exerts force, society has entrusted them with that power. Their title does not vanish the moment they cross the line. They are still empowered by the state, and that’s why we hold them to higher standards. - The Tyreek Hill Case - Proof in Action: You referenced Tyreek Hill, but your argument falls apart in the face of real-world examples like this one. The officers involved in the brutality against Hill weren’t suddenly stripped of their title when they used excessive force. They were still recognized as police officers—with the power and authority that title bestows. The brutality occurred precisely because they were still operating as officers, using the trust and authority given to them by society to oppress.
You say they "aren’t police anymore" when they act this way? Legally, they are. They still have the power to oppress, abuse, and brutalize. That’s why it’s so dangerous. If they were simply random individuals with no authority, this would be an entirely different conversation. The misuse of power by someone holding the title of police officer is why the term police brutality exists. - Misnomers? No. Legal Definitions: You claim that “police brutality” is a misnomer, but this term isn’t some social misunderstanding. It’s a legal term. It defines a very real phenomenon where officers, entrusted with public safety, use excessive and unwarranted force. There’s nothing misleading about it.
Let’s bring it home: society does not care if, by your philosophical standard, they are no longer “true” police officers. The fact is that they hold the title, they have the power, and they are legally accountable for how they use it. Your focus on whether they are really officers is irrelevant when you look at the harm they cause while still wearing the uniform. - You’re Defending a Dangerous Mindset: By drawing these false distinctions, you’re inadvertently defending the idea that there’s no need to hold people accountable under the banner of police brutality. You’re suggesting that we dismiss those actions as just bad individuals outside the system, but that ignores the very real problem that they are committing these acts while representing the law. It’s a dangerous idea because it absolves the system from accountability.
When police abuse their power, they do it as representatives of the system, not just as rogue individuals. That’s why we hold them accountable as police officers—because society trusts them with special powers that the rest of us don’t have.
Your argument is a philosophical exercise that has no bearing on how power and authority function in reality. Society uses terms like "police brutality" because they accurately describe what happens when law enforcement officers—holding all the power that comes with their position—abuse that power. It’s not about their nature; it’s about the real-world impact of their actions while still operating within the framework of law enforcement.
The Tyreek Hill case is a glaring example of how officers can and do oppress people while still legally functioning as police. To deny that is to ignore the reality of power dynamics, and that’s why your argument doesn’t stand.
Looking forward to your next points if you'd like to continue, or we can conclude based on these distinction.
Round 5
For the record, my positions are consistent. If you think you can prove otherwise, step up and accept my challenges. Put up or shut up.
I digress.
The opposing side did not answer my question. What's a police officer?
I believe the opposing side knows that the answer to that question will backfire on the opposing case.
I believe the opposing side knows what a police officer is.
I'm quite sure that being brutal, oppressive, anything against the law the officer is to enforce is not in the definition.
The opposing side is filibustering and going in circles not responding to my questions and points.
By this conclusion the opposing side has indirectly forfeited.
Case closed.
Forfeited
People believe police are brutal and they call 911 to expect brutal people called police to come to their aid.
Obtuse, keep thinking backwards.
Mall on his way to redefine his stance after each argument
I think I guessed which argument Mall will use, well at least close enough to it.
🤯 🤯🤯
Police represent the law. Everything that law does is legal by tautology. Police brutality doesnt exist and cannot exist.
Curious to see what crazy take is used on this one...