Total votes: 3
Background
__________
As I am accustomed, members of society tasked with carrying out law enforcement duties are considered civilians, and they are prepared but not permitted to use lethal force. In rare instances they may do so out of defense of themselves or others as a reasonable person might decide in their position, and the justice system is supposed to respect them not because they are police, but because they are human beings. There is some leeway in the context of resisting arrest to implement a superior amount of force to that of the accused, but the intent in such cases is normally not to abuse them. If the community were to perceive an excessive amount of force, it could bring about a controversy.
No points will be awarded for attempting to justify defense of one's self, their family, or their community.
In light of that experience and because torture clearly indicates an act of offense, I'm taking "lethal force/torture" to align Pro with police that are not considered as members of the civilian populous as I am accustomed. The primary intent is not necessarily peace and justice, but rather to inflict harm on a credible threat. They may plan, coordinate, and carry out attacks upon enemy targets in a militant fashion, and so on.
The representative of government is generally expected to justify their intervention.
__________
RFD
Round 1
Pro's main argument coming out of round one is that if the police lose a fight to criminals, then some criminals might begin to take advantage of the general situation and crime will run rampant. I'm not entirely satisfied that this justifies ambushing people with guns blazing, or torturing the survivors.
I doubt that the majority of criminals resist arrest where I live, so that was an interesting observation to see from someone else's perspective. There's also an example in the case of a shootout, that naturally police may be inclined to defend themselves and members of the surrounding community.
Con introduced a case demonstrating an instance in which lethal force would be excessive, where a man was handcuffed and on the ground in the midst of being detained by police officers. I didn't find this all that compelling in and of itself.
Round 2 - Pro hasn't truly bolstered their side of the case up till now.
Pro spent much of round 2 rebutting Con's points in round 1. At the end pro states "So in my opinion, just because few policemen show a great sign of racism, that doesn't mean that they shouldn’t use force against danger they face while doing their jobs." I needed something more for this to be relatable, and round 2 did not do much to bolster the case.
Con: "I agree with Mohammed Gamal when he said that policemen should use lethal weapons when they have to or when they defend citizens". So, in that context, I think when Con says they disagree with "the only way to ensure a successful arrest and the safety of the officers is to permit police officers to use force’" they're obviously not referring to force in general. They actually meant to refer to an excessive use of force during the course of arrest as expressed in round 1, to the point that it poses imminent danger to someone who's reacting to the disrespect of being cuffed against their will.
Because Pro did not provide a compelling case for lethal force outside the scope of defense in civilian life, overall argument goes to Con.
__________
I did not consider the statistical statements of Con from round 2.
I think this debate could have gone more in-depth. Too much is left up to interpretation.
Affirmative action - Affirmative action is a policy in which an individual's colour, race, sex, religion or national origin are taken into account to increase opportunities provided to an underrepresented part of society.
Affirmative action does not need to be based on race. Essentially what I expect of Pro is to prove that the policy of identifying underrepresented parts of society so certain people might receive some sort of administrative privilege causes racism.
Pro's argument in round one seems to be centered around the idea that affirmative action can be based upon racism, but they didn't show me why affirmative action caused racism among the faculty or students. Maybe racism is linked to something else, and affirmative action was merely an expression.
I did not regard the video in round one.
Round 2 - Pro states: "I simply need to show that X causes Y, therefore, I uphold my BoP." What pro actually did was more like stating X = X than X causes Y.
Racial discrimination is an expression of racism, yes. Does affirmative action predispose people to discriminate on the basis of race?
______
Arguments that might have bolstered Pro's case could include parallels between different forms of discrimination, discussing the possibility that affirmative action also has an effect on hiring practices, what is considered acceptable behavior in the workplace, who would consider taking up the requirements of the job, and so forth.
Pro made a simple argument that throughout their ordeal convicted criminals need not be tortured. This is true, and Con MUST justify "torture"
Torture: "According to Cambridge Dictionary torture means to cause great physical or mental pain to someone"
The CIA operative Con cites could not justify torture.
- "One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."
- Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.
- "Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."
Relevant words you will not find in the CNN article: Guilty, Convicted.
All I know is that the informant was scheduled to be tortured because of their association and presumed intelligence.
_________
Pro opened up by framing an image of supervillains torturing innocent people for their gain. Please do not waste time of the person you are debating with.
Pro did not take time to proofread their argument in round 2.
Further suggestions: "Effectiveness" is not a justification. "The good outweighs the bad" is not a conscionable reason to hurt someone.