Question: Should Law Enforcement Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

It is resolved that law enforcement officers should be mandated to wear body-worn cameras. As my adversary has pointed out, our current criminal justice system is far from perfect. What he fails to acknowledge is that this same critique applies to his argument as well. He posits that the use of body cameras will provide unbiased video evidence, allowing society to make informed judgments about police actions. However, the mere fact that the government or society approves of a situation does not necessarily mean that it was just. Society has its own conception of what constitutes "fairness," based on its core values and principles. Not everyone may share these values and principles. The fact that the majority holds a certain view does not automatically make it right. Consider historical examples such as ancient Rome, where slavery was legal, or the Middle East, where homosexuality is sometimes punished by death, or Nazi Germany, where the extermination of Jews was sanctioned. Just because something is deemed "legal" does not mean it is morally correct. With the implementation of body cameras, the government will have total control over the police force, meaning that its interpretation of "right" and "justice" will be more effectively imposed on the populace. I find this troubling. Even though I generally agree with the government's values, should I ever disagree, I would have no means to challenge the government. Everything would be recorded and individuals could be punished based on the government's self-serving interpretation of "justice." I fear that granting the government such unchecked power could lead to disaster, as if the government were to become corrupt, there would be nothing one could do to escape its "unjust" (by one's own standards) retribution.

It is rediculous for them to save lives IN THAT WAY. It isn't affecting any one else, therefore in my opinion it should be a personal choice. If the statistics of people who die from not wearing their seatbelt doesn't scare you enough, than it's your loss. There are too many abusive cops out there anyway, and this is just something they can fine you for even if you are wearing it since it's such a minor offense that they can get away with lying about. you never know. Nevertheless, I understand that that is a seperate issue. Also to avoid any further confusion, I was NOT defending streaking. I was refrencing what you said, and then said that I disagree with you, because streaking and jaywalking DO affect other people.

Pro opens by observing that police officers are just "public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled". First, I'm claiming that police officers should quit and work for the private sector. There are already about 50% more private security guards than public police [1] [2]. Second, pro talks about wasted training (as if this were really on everybody's mind when they're getting shot at), and again, this can be permutated into my "join the private security industry or play nice" counterplan. =========== Con Case =========== A) Police Attack Innocent People 1) Arresting someone means you physically subdue and restrain them. That's "attacking". Police attack and arrest anyone who violate government laws, which may or may not be just. My position is that the majority of these laws are unjust, such as drug laws. My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad. Its probably the major reason why police get shot at in the first place, so it is highly topical. It also accounts for a large majority of the people in prison. So you have police trying to kidnap people who aren't hurting anyone. They have the right to self defense against the police officer, so they can kill him. The police officer has no right to be messing with them in the first place, so he has no right to self defense. Resolution negated. 2) Pro says this argument doesn't matter because hippies and teenagers aren't armed. They could be... but the point is that they have a RIGHT to shoot the police officer. Pro goes on to say that police officers have a right to apprehend drug users because "possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US". This is called an "Appeal to Authority". If the US government says that redheads are allowed to be raped, they STILL have the right to self defense that transcends whatever the f*cks in Washington decide. So non-violent drug users, like redheads, have a right to self defense no matter what US "law" says. Police officers upholding unjust laws have forfeited their rights. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 3) Pro doesn't rebut that police protect the country's largest and most violent criminal organization. In addition to the massive amount of taxes they take and give to large corporations, they've killed literally millions of people for no given reason... including the aftermath of the first Iraq War, deadly injections of "foreign aid"[3] and many terrorist campaigns in South America and Africa [4]. Pro's only defense of the police who protect these genocidal maniacs is that they protect US citizens as well. This is incredibly shortsighted, and even if police were giving me foot rubs every day, it would not be enough to make up for their support of government thugs. Furthermore, if police really WERE protecting my rights, there would be almost no private security industry. Except there is... and its much larger than the public security industry. See above citations. I guess public police just chase down druggies and really aren't all that essential to preventing muggings and home burglaries. Pro then goes on to say he doesn't want to debate anarchy vs statism. That's fine. I'll just assume the "minarchist" or minimal, nightwatchman state. In either case, the just role of police officers is restricted to protecting people's libertarian rights, not hunting down peaceful drug users. He claims that my "argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government", but I'd be really happy with a minarchist state. Pro then brings up the "if you don't like it, leave" argument... which is totally peripheral, especially since I just conceded minarchy. Regardless, Pro seems to think that the US government can do literally anything to me, and as long as I stay put, that means I "consent". Does this mean I can break into his house, start stealing his stuff, and he "consents" as long as I give him the option to move? I think not. C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible 4) Pro's rebuttal of this sub point is particularly weak. If you don't buy all the ra-ra anti government stuff, please just vote off this. Pro says that "Just Apprehenders do not have the right to make legal arrests in this country. If a LEO is to be arrested, for whatever reason, then the victim should call the proper authorities." He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes. They don't have to be... but even if you buy that "the proper authorities" are the only people who can arrest police officers, they STILL have to threaten the rogue police officer with deadly force. He doesn't have a right to shoot back if, from hypothesis, he ought to go to jail. ================ Concluding Argument ================ Pro concludes that people who draw weapons on police officers are stupid and deserve to die. This G.I. Joe theory of public enforcement is completely devoid of substance or context. In reality, Police are out there to kidnap innocent drug users and protect the pigs in office. Even if you don't buy the drug war angle, you still have to believe that it CAN BE JUST for people to rise up against their governments... That there are contexts where shooting a police officer is the morally just and correct thing to do. Pro's blind third grade "police are the good guys" chant paints over a much more sinister and complicated reality. The long and short is that being a police officer doesn't give you extra moral rights over other human beings. The absolutism of the resolution is easily negated. [1]http://www.bls.gov... [2]http://www.bls.gov... [3]http://www.cato.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Welcome temmo I heavily apologize im a newcomer I dont really know much but I love law and poltics.And I really truly am sorry for the inconvinice with baus. Moving on my first point 1st.School uniforms should be banned because children and teens would like creativity in there lives that includes when they dress for school 2nd.Is it illegal for a student to dress freely.I know all about uniforms and yes it preven6ts alot of mishaps but i t restrains individuality. 3rd.Do you want to wear the same thing everyday? 4th.Bullies will still call you names regardless of the shirt or pants and the #1 rule is dont care about what they say (Note for my opponet I am extremly sorry for what happened)

1. It is the police's job to meet their quota. 2. It is not the police's job to keep you safe(this was an actual supreme court case) 3. Your entire argument is based on the few drivers who are irresponsible. If a cop sees someone driving aggressively, failing to maintain their lane, or turning out in front of people, they should pull them over. This debate is about not ticketing those who may break the law, but are not posing in type of danger to someone. 4. Your argument of going through the motions and just looking instead of really looking has no proof to it. If I see headlights, I will wait for them to pass, simple as that. 5. You have a utopian driving view. You want everyone to obey the law. In reality, those who are simply driving safely, keeping with the flow, get tickets everyday. Those same people go the speed limit in the future, and get ran off the road. I know people who have actually had this problem. 6. If the following the law proves to be dangerous, do not follow the law. If you can drive safely and reasonably without following the law to a T, do it. 7. My point with the cop was really that it would have been safe to go sixty or seventy on that road. The cop did it, why are regular drivers not capable of doing it. Cops are supposed to "lead by example" aren't they? 8. The cop may not pass the law, but he or she enforces it. A cop should pull someone over and tell them that they are behaving dangerously, have a tail light out, or failing to maintain their lane. A cop should not ticket them for it. 9. If a person is driving down the road and sees a cop, they immediately feel as if they are doing something wrong and get scared. Police are supposed to be nice and friendly, not make us feel as if they are the Gestapo or something.

I am nearly going to surrender but I would like to add one point. A policeman have to be punished or even died if he/she shot a man with no reason or the man he/she shot did not commit serious crime.

We all agree that society is not perfect, but for it to become better we need to stop adding law's that are against human rights. More particularly in this case, women's rights. A lot of women already wish to expose their breasts because they don't like hiding them, it makes them feel weak. Now for the weapon issue, I wish to not elaborate more since it is far off the main question. Legalizing abortion will of course be denied by some people but we should not punish a majority just because of a minority. Just because a few rapists will commit crimes we can't force all women to hide their breasts. I am still not clear on how this law would have bad consequences. You said : 'We live in a society that at times, views women as objects, and by removing this dress barrier, it WILL cause negative repercussions, against those who will try to bravely use their new rights.' I understand that women can be viewed from different angles but I still do not understand what could be so bad about it.

While I agree that is is not ideal to be pulled aside by an officer for a random search, it prevents a lot of crime. In most public schools, police searches happen commonly at random times, when this happens it prevents drug / substance abuse in the classroom and generally in the building. If you pull people aside and acknowledge their rights, then you can prevent a lot of crime, and maybe even save someone from death. But with doing something like this, comes compromise: 1) The police can only random search in certain parts of the city or county and certain buildings. 2) The police official may not use brutal force on the individual, they must be gentle. 3) If an issue occurs during the search, the police cannot charge the man and arrest, they may only take them to the PD and have them stay there for emergency search. 4) If an illegal item such as a firearm or an illegal dose of drugs is found, the item will be confiscated and the individual would be put in the PD and kept there for further questioning. 5) It is not necessary to hold hearings in the court of the law for such results of random searches unless the individual requests so. I'm not saying police should pull over random people solely based on who they are or what they look like, but getting someone body searches (not frisks) set up would be nice. And while we're at it, police should also be on foot patrol more commonly than they do. Most of the time I see any sign of police it would be an empty police car. I wish that by doing this to prevent the rate of crime in most crime-infested counties.

You make some very good points, but I beg to differ. Since you mentioned cost, I must say that there are many unimportant tech items in our schools right now. For example, those smart boards that I was talking about before cost between $3000-5000. Smart boards are being put up in the Spanish and band classrooms which is useless because this whole entire year, my teachers have used the expensive boards only to draw on because they are confused by all the devices. If we didn't put so many smart boards around the school, then I'm sure there'll be enough money to support the cameras. But bullying is a major issue in our schools right now. Just look what happened to Phoebe Prince. How would you feel if your kid came home with a black eye and the teachers don't know who caused it. I personally would be pretty pissed. But anyway, with just security cameras at the main entrances it can save many people from dangerous situations. As a matter of fact, we just did a code black drill test and since there were security cameras at our school, we kept an eye on the outside world. It's important because if there ever was a real code black, the criminal could force one of the principals to call it off and that'd lure everyone out of hiding. Last but not least would be the privacy issue. Nobody at our school ever complains about the invasion of privacy because they already get their privacy invaded everyday. That would be the cause of something called gym class. Most of the people change and for the one's that don't, well all they get is a little check point by their name which is strike one out of three. Besides, we're always being watched every time we go out or to a public place. It's not like the person watching the cameras will be running around the school telling everybody they saw someone pick their boogers. Most of the time it'll a teacher watching and they wouldn't do bad things on purpose. However if they caught someone drawing on the walls then they might report that person.

Should we wear uniforms? Yes. Why wear uniforms? What's the point? It teaches you the way of life and to follow the rules, Even though it may suck and it may be something that you don't want to do, That's life. Let's be real here, Who enjoys uniforms? They are annoying -- it just teaches you to follow rules. When you start a job and you're working, You can't wear anything you want. You must wear your work clothes that are assigned from your boss. In the long run, It's more of a good thing than a burden. Another thing is students can be easily identified which will increase their safety. Bullying. Bullying occurs whether students are wearing uniforms or not, But uniforms can reduce bullying. By students wearing the same generalizing clothes, It will help. Of course it won't help the bullying entirely but most likely, They will not make fun of your clothes since they are wearing the same thing. Style. You can make uniforms look good, I. E many accessories, Watches, Good looking shoes and things of that nature. Every person has their own unique sense of style. Uniforms may limit it, But it's good to make the most out of it so you don't feel unfree. Solution. The good thing is once you reach high school + college, You won't have to wear uniforms. You can wear whatever you want and express yourself much better and be more comfortable.

So you said to take away guns from everybody. What about police officers or anybody like them. If we took guns away there would be more killing by being stabbed. Being stabbed is probably a much more painful and longer death. I should defend myself if necessary. I am a hunter too so I use guns to kill animals. But when buying a gun it is very safe and very secure. Guns is how this country was built. They were used in wars, to hunt like today, and to protect people in need. They are not always used in the right way today but that's why paper work and backround checks are used.


Question: Should Law Enforcement Officers Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

Law enforcement agencies in the United States should be mandated to use body cameras during civilian encounters. My opponent has provided three sources, but they merely lead to the homepage of three news websites, failing to substantiate the existence of three distinct studies on police body cameras. This action warrants a deduction of source points and should be penalized accordingly. Furthermore, conduct points should also be deducted, as I am only aware of one significant study on police body cameras. I suspect my opponent has misrepresented the number of studies conducted. The focus of this debate is not the utility of police body cameras or whether they should be required, but rather, whether they should be activated during every civilian interaction. It is possible to support the use of body cameras while opposing their use in every encounter. For instance, officers should be allowed to turn off their cameras when dealing with a rape victim or an informant. What is the rationale for recording an informant revealing information about drug dealers openly selling on the corner? It could deter informants from coming forward, with no apparent upside. In the case of a 7-year-old boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims, and it is unlikely that serious questioning would occur immediately after the event. However, this is not a television show like Law and Order SVU, and detectives often do not speak to victims. In a personal situation where I killed an escaping robber, I was never interviewed by a detective and was later issued a subpoena for court without any detective interaction. In reality, most crime victims only speak to first responders, and their witness statement should suffice without the need for a camera recording during the most traumatic moments of their lives. Moreover, my opponent has not provided a valid reason for forcing victims or informants to be recorded. It is likely that my opponent attempted to link to three articles on the same Rialto California police body camera study, but even during these studies, body cameras were not activated during every civilian encounter. No police department in the United States requires that. According to Police One, who reported on the study and provided a link to it, "For 12 months, Rialto's 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, "the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,"

Police misconduct has become rampant in the United States. Police officers break the law without care or concern because many of them know there will be no consequences.

I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.

Despite no full knowledge of the given video, I still think the shooting of the dog in question was an unethical and unjustifiable action. The killing of a dog must always be a last resort, and the cop in question had alternatives. He should have used a stick of some sort to either strike the dog in the back of the neck or to block the dog's bite so the second officer could restrain the dog. I think it unlikely that the suspect would flee, after all, he would be leaving his dog behind. The officer jumped to the last resort without even seeing what the owner's experienced solution would be. For this reason, I believe the cop was unjustified in his actions. Awaiting your response, Duncan

This is not a question of privacy, it is one of safety. If you truly feel that people shouldn't have to wear seat belts if they don't won't to, and similarly with motorcyclists; shouldn't have to wear helmets. I think the voting shall be rather predictable. Do you think the small hassle of putting on a seat belt and wearing a helmet out ways the life saving benefits of them?

I believe gun control should not be a thing because there are numerous ways to get guns. 1. Make it yourself 2. Buy it Illegally 3. Become a police officer There's probably even more. So if a guy decided that he wanted to have a gun for recreational purposes he would go through the background check after he got a gun license. Like all licenses it needs to be renewed. Now on the off chance he became angry or started having criminal thoughts he might rely on his already registered and purchased firearm. so it would be easier to find out who's gun it actually is. now when he decided to do this since guns you can freely carry around a bystander who is closer than the police who figures this out can respond except for the fact you can't go inside anywhere with a gun just stand on public state property, a firing range and legally be able to shoot it or your own property. so if they were banned but someone illegally got their hands on a gun it would be like handing a stick of supreme power over any innocent bystander.

Well blast my horn and call me Chirpy, you've found me out, all the way to the eleventh "ha". However, after reading your arguments, I think even my first paragraph would be enough to win this one (oh snap) but never the less, I suppose I'll still respond. 1 - Time efficiency My opponent argues with a video of a silly-ish police officer directing traffic. After watching it you should notice two things: first, there were no crashes for all his flashy directing. Secondly, traffic went smoothly. His own video is works in my favor. He then shows us pictures were police cars from that happy land of Britain have crashed, sometimes ridiculously. If this is the case, then by his logic, we should remove ALL drivers for instances like these: http://crazycrashes.files.wordpress.com... http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com... http://allworldcars.com... http://www.nascarspace.com... Moreover, this is after they've gone through driving tests to get licenses to drive. All humans can make driving errors, regardless of their job status. Their own ability to drive hardly has a say in how they would simply direct traffic. But if that is a criterion, lets watch a video of how well a computer drives itself shall we? http://www.youtube.com... I think that speaks for itself. Brains beat chips hands down. Computers process numbers, they don't think about them. Until AI is invented, a thinking cops performance would greatly beat that of a traffic lights programming. 2 - Anger Management Of course, someone will have to wait some of the time. However, a cop's ability to think would enable him to make intelligent decisions about when to allow lanes to move. If there's a crowded lane, he lets that go, and when its more straggling cars he lets the next group go while that lane fills again. A light may start to do this, but then they'll make some lanes idle while no one passes, and worst yet, will stop crowds of cars at a good speed to let one car go by when that same car could have easily gone through earlier when there was no one passing it. These stupid errors are wasting the consumer's time and money. Also, I don't see any real threat to this corrupt cops statement. Yeah, there are some bad cops, but then again, there's also corrupt doctors, corrupt politicians, corrupt beekeepers. But for all of those there's even more good ones (well, politicians maybe not, but still). Even if this was viable, think of the complexity and expense. The cop would have to memorize the posh's car, the richer would have to know the cops shifts, and a way to communicate that he's waiting in line, and do this for every cop on his route (so for arguments sake, lets say 16). Each cops minimum salary is about $44000, so it take more than a tenny to make them let something like that slide, especially with the knowledge that if this nefarious scandal was found out, he'd be disbarred and prosecuted himself for taking brides. He wouldn't be willing to risk his neck for anything less than 100-200 quid (or as us Yanks say: bacon). So, this smug mug has to pay each $100 on his route, probably both ways, which is $22,400 for a week, or $1,164,800 a year. A bit pricey for getting though lights a bit early wouldn't you agree? No, I think inefficient lights that cost the driver time and money is a much greater problem then cops slipping in a few bucks on the side. 3 - Saving Gas If lights went in sequence like you say then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that they very much do not do anything in sequence, or anything else slightly intelligent. Instead they make the driver stop and start continuously, and cause the driver to waste gas trying to get back up to speed to make up for lost time. And I don't know what financial oasis you live in where people can just buy new push button cars, but over here in Normalpeopleville, Rita Receptionist and Joe the Plumber (see what I did with that political reference?) have to live with their key start cars. More often than not they would waste more gas turning their cars off and on than by idling. Even if the turning on and off was more gas friendly, you try making every driver in the world do that, even in this 'greener' age. No, it'd be more economically and fuel friendly just to let the driver drive than have to sit there. A smart traffic cop would allow that, rather than a computer. It's a no brainer, literally. 4 - Creating Jobs If a computers piloting ability is still in question, I'll let you watch that video one more time. No, go ahead I'll wait. Really, it's no trouble. Okay, you saw it? Good. Computers are only calculators with different shells. That plane probably had a complex 'rate of descent' algorithm that is more complex than I'd care to imagine. Nevertheless, it still crashed, badly. A thinking pilot wouldn't have let something like that happen. Likewise, a human cop will also think better than a traffic lights programming, because he can make up for changes, and use eyes and common sense to know when a lane should go and which ones should stop for a bit. Also, I agree a public transport system would be great, but it would be costly, and impractical unless it ran off something besides oil. Also, it has nothing to do with the problem of traffic lights, so moving on. 5 - Screaming Baileys? Please. Go with a tall glass of Captain Morgans spiced rum. Do you got a little captain in you? http://www.remotigue.net... So while I can't promise traffic cops to look like that, my opponent also can't promise to get computers that look like this http://images.epilogue.net... Therefore, we'll have to go on intelligence, in which case, brains will always beat chips. Traffic cops would be far more efficient than the current light system, saving you, yes you, no not Steve, don't look at Steve, what's he got to do with this? But you, Average Driver. Your money, time, and patience is all wasted at the light. Want change? Get Brains. A final example of how aggravating computers can be to people. Just look at this childs reaction, and enjoy http://www.youtube.com...

Ok, the title is pretty self-explanatory, this debate is whether or not school uniforms should be required nationwide. I am taking the con position, and my opponent has the objective of proving that school uniforms would be helpful to the nation in elementary and high schools.

I'd like to open up by pointing out that I'm not against racism. I am starting this debate to get the hang of the topic so soon I can make one for the position I fully stand behind. With that being said you (con) also do not have to be a racist to debate back. I'd also like to point out that by "racism" I'm more specifically referring to Caucasian towards black. I am fully aware that black people can also be racists and that there are other ethnicity's that are discriminated but I'd like to only talk about black. My opening argument: Black people have been discriminated against for centuries. They have been used as slaves and segregated. Racism is rude, insensitive and hurtful. Not only does it harm people's feelings, but can also cause a certain friction between races of which can lead to a full out war. What happened in Ferguson serves as proof that prejudice between a cop and a black citizen led to riots. A Law that made prejudice illegal, meaning that people could no longer use racial slurs or express themselves in a way that could be harmful to a black person would make it so intrigues caused by those terms or behaviors would benefit society by making it so no one would get emotionally hurt and preventing fights.

Yes people should be able to do those things freely without restrictions! Should we watch over adults in there homes with cameras to make sure there safe?

It would be better to wear a helmet than no helmet if you are involved in an accident, but making it a law to wear helmets does not save lives. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind voters that "saving lives" is used to justify doing just about anything including war crimes such as the japan bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki where more lives were lost than saved in the end, and the bomb was used to save soldiers not civilian life. Laws should be made to protect people from other people, not from theirselves.


Question: Should Law Enforcement Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

Body cameras serve as a deterrent against police misconduct.

"Information about Body cameras and the city of New Orleans". From the Office of Mayor Landrieu - "Body cameras worn by police officers help to identify instances of misconduct and provide a deterrent to those who know they are being recorded. This leads to a decrease in complaints against police and an increase in trust between the community and law enforcement."

My argument remains the government was instituted to protect our rights not to infringe on them. The fourth amendment and the constitution is a limitation on government it says very cleary that the government cannot intrude on our lives. The will of the majority or the minority does not change this.

Your first debate, let the mayhem begin! Just kidding, I am no better at this than you are most likely. Don't let my win ratio fool you. A couple of weeks ago I was 0-27 now as of this posting I am 24-3-1 I am a controversial personality and people mess with my voting record, it is a completely unreliable indicator of my debating skills or is it HMMM. Anywaaaay. Let me start by saying your entire opening argument infers that all forms of public humiliation must include bodily harm. I specifically stated that if you needed examples to make your case I would provide them. Public humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not against the law. "Do not confuse slander with public humiliation" Exhibit (A) All the major tabloids and news outlets publicly humiliate people everyday. They can say what ever they want about anybody without impunity. You can not sue anybody for publicly humiliating you. I can walk up to you in a crowd of people and make fun of you and make rude comments about you and there is nothing you can do about it. Public humiliation is in fact being used in several places around the country right now with very good results. Tents for jail cells in the Arizona desert: http://www.cnn.com... The recidivism rate for the inmates that go through the sheriffs rehabilitation program is 14% verses 60% on the national average. You will note that every single human rights and civil rights group in the country has been unsuccessful at closing it down. So this is proof that public humiliation and harsh living environments are not inhumane as long as they don't cause bodily injury. This judge in Texas makes people where signs, again not unconstitutional with better recidivism rate than national average. http://articles.latimes.com... Only 3 out of 600 people have repeated offenses. "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process? This argument clearly falls." This link explains the vicious cycle that 4 out of every ten people get caught up in starting out as misdemeanor offence in most cases and end up convicted felons because they can't pay the fees associated with it. It is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn people to a life of crime over a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars. http://www.thenation.com... "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process?" The above comment is also addressed in the last link. The legal justice system today is pretty much a business or a corporation theses days. Entire sub businesses are propped up by the legal system. For example: DUI schools, Anger Management Schools, Financial planning schools, Driving schools, they have a school or a class or some sort of councilor for just about anything you can think of. And you have to attend these classes for weeks if not months and the cost of all these things add up: Fines, probation, schools, counseling. The vast majority of the people who have to attend and pay for these things are often indigent to begin with and wind up violating their probation because they can't pay all these fines and fees. Next thing they know they are convicted felons for VOP violations and are given more fines and ordered to more classes and more counseling on top of what they already can't pay for. The vicious cycle begins and a once misdemeanor offence ends up as a felony and the person just gives up and lives it up or runs from the law until the next time they get caught because they now have nothing to lose. "My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls" This comment is addressed by the fact that people who get caught up in the legal system are unable to find employment because they have warrants and such that prohibit any kind of permanent gainful employment forcing them to engage in illegal means to earn or steel money. Public humiliation is a much better option. People 9 times out of ten will choose to pay a fine or go to jail over being publicly humiliated. People choose to pay because public humiliation is just that "public humiliation" I have given numerous examples and statistics to prove that public humiliation of the types presented in my argument are far more effective at detouring repeat offenses than probation or counseling or schools. All these people caught up in the justice system should be publicly humiliated for their original offence and have all the fines and schools and on and on dropped so the person can get back to living. Public humiliation would reduce crime especially if it is used on first time offenders in particular as it will have a lasting and unforgettable deterrence effect.

So, I have been wondering for a while now, should employees be forced to cover tattoos? I think not because a lot of tattoos are meant for honor and lost loved one, and as long as they are not offensive in racial OR obscene they do not impair my ability to do my job. Also unless i am working at say a church-y store where I am in presence of highly judgmental and prejudice groups with strong viewpoints of having tattoos ( which who with tattoos would subject themselves to that??) Covering tattoos SHOULD NOT be mandatory.

Thank you handywandy for accepting. I will be proving my points mainly through logic (as a result of this, you may not see me using very many sources). I would like to note that I am actually against gun free zones, but as long as they exist, this would be a good compromise. Gun free zones result in innocent people being defenseless in the event that an armed criminal decides to bring a gun into the gun free zone (for the purpose of either robbery or just to start shooting people). Studies have shown that most shootings occur in gun free zones [1]. This shouldn't be a surprise since the criminal can expect no one to be armed as he commits the crime. The chances of the gunman being immediately shot are almost zero, since this would require a law-abiding citizen to have illegally carried a gun into the area (my [1] source notes a situation where this happened, as the conceal carrier was unaware of the gun free zone). My point so far is that any person with a gun can easily kill people in a gun free zone, as these people are completely defenseless. Gun free zones are also likely attract criminals due to the unlikeliness of being stopped in a reasonable amount of time. But imagine a situation where an armed security guard was in the area. The criminal might then think twice about committing a crime in that zone in the first place, and if they did attempt a gun-related crime there, the criminal would quickly be stopped by the security guard. Therefpre, to increase the safety of gun free zones, I believe an armed security guard should be required in such zones. Thus, my logic goes something like this: -Law abiding citizens will not knowingly bring guns into gun-free zones. -Criminals are not law abiding citizens, and do not obey the law. -Therefore, a criminal can have a gun in a gun free zone (while law abiding citizens can not). -If the above is true, a criminal can expect to not be stopped in a gun free zone. -Therefore, gun free zones are an easy target for criminals. -If an armed security guard was placed in a gun free zone, a criminal would not be the only one with a gun. -Due to the known presence of another person with a gun, gun free zones would no longer be a favorable target for criminals due to fear of being shot. -If an insane serial killer decides to shoot people in a gun free zone despite the presence of a guard, he would quickly be stopped by that guard. -Therefore, the presence of an armed guard in a gun free zone greatly increases the safety of that zone. I would also like to note that if a law was made requiring gun free zones to have security guards, it would give millions of people jobs as security guards, decreasing the unemployment. That's my argument so far. I would like to see what my opponent has to say. Good luck. [1] http://www.cabinet.com...

Police agencies have traditionally provided services to schools, but it has only been over the past 20 years where the practice of assigning police officers to schools on a full-time basis has become more wide-spread. Criminal justice and education officials sought to expand school safety efforts"which included assigning law enforcement officers to patrol schools"in the wake of a series of high-profile school shootings in the 1990s.4 Expanding the presence of SROs in schools was also partly a response to rising juvenile crime rates during the 1980s and early 1990s. S.R.O (School Resource Officers) are sworn, licensed police officers with the ability to exact Probable cause in school. Not only would the cost of the SRO be consequential to the schools funding but it creates a bad environment as well. The students are put into the justice system most of the time caused by minor offense, not only does that cause complications for both student and parent but it ruins there success in life by giving them a criminal record.

I definitely do believe that the colour blue should be legal for people to wear in public. The colour blue is agreeable to many different ethnicities for many different reasons. People clearly only wear the colour blue as a way of flattering other humans which I believe to be right. It should be legal to wear blue because this way the world will become a better place.

The police have an obligation to protect the community but how far? When the police receive military equipment for use against the citizens of the community, they are betraying the trust and disrupting the harmony of their citizens. The civil liberties of every citizen can be taken away without any intervention due to the high capabilities of the militarized police. The police have built a system so as if any or every citizen wishes to express any new ideas or ideals he/she or they will be easily managed, arrested, and dealt with swiftly. The police have been gearing up for war with training, equipment and shoot first mentality.

The second amendment is essential to a state that will ultimately prosper. My position is simple, if a state does not enforce some sort of second amendment-esque law, it could become corrupt and fall into anarchy. Feel free to argue against me.

should also means duty or obligation is it not the duty of our government to provide equal rights to everybody no matter religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. If the government runs are military then shouldn't the military keep those same rules.

Seeing as how BoP would be shared, as not all police departments only use civil service exams to determine promotions today, I shall defend an only civil service form of promotion. In the free market, this would not be an issue; the agency that hired and promoted better people would do better, the less successful would fail. However, being part of the "public" sector, police can be hired and promoted for political, rather than useful, reasons. A police officer who does not understand the law he/she enforces will be less useful than one who does, and likewise an officer promoted based on political reasons rather than knowledge of the law will be a detriment to society. Pro may contend that good people skills, ability to handle a firearm well, and past records would be important to determining if an officer should be promoted; however, people skills and firearm management are part of the minimum requirements to being a police officer, and if there is no black marks on a record, then why should the person not try for promotion? In essence, an only civil service exam method of promoting police will be better at preventing corruption. I await Pro's Response.


Question: Should Law Enforcement Officers Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

If an individual has nothing to conceal, there should be no concern. The purpose of cameras is to safeguard the community, not to intrude on individuals or pry into their private lives. The sole focus is on those who violate the law. If a person has no secrets to hide, they should not object to being recorded; instead, they should appreciate the efforts of law enforcement to protect them and their fellow citizens. Therefore, body cameras should be mandatory for police officers to ensure transparency and accountability in their interactions with the public. The use of body cameras can help to prevent police misconduct and provide evidence in cases of alleged police brutality. Moreover, the footage captured by body cameras can be used to exonerate officers who are wrongly accused of misconduct, thus protecting their reputations and careers. Overall, the benefits of mandatory body cameras for police officers far outweigh any potential privacy concerns.

Seeing as how BoP would be shared, as not all police departments only use civil service exams to determine promotions today, I shall defend an only civil service form of promotion. In the free market, this would not be an issue; the agency that hired and promoted better people would do better, the less successful would fail. However, being part of the "public" sector, police can be hired and promoted for political, rather than useful, reasons. A police officer who does not understand the law he/she enforces will be less useful than one who does, and likewise an officer promoted based on political reasons rather than knowledge of the law will be a detriment to society. Pro may contend that good people skills, ability to handle a firearm well, and past records would be important to determining if an officer should be promoted; however, people skills and firearm management are part of the minimum requirements to being a police officer, and if there is no black marks on a record, then why should the person not try for promotion? In essence, an only civil service exam method of promoting police will be better at preventing corruption. I await Pro's Response.

Sorry, this was my first debate and I forgot about it. In response to my arguer, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if driving w/o your seatbelt can cause you to get hurt and not die, or harm other people in the car. I'm saying that it should not be enforced. It should definetely be recommended by athorities and everyone should wear them, but if they don't that should be their own fault if they get hurt in an accident. It's not like DUI where you can cause damage to others on the road. When you don't wear your seatbelt you're only hurting yourself. It's like getting fined for having annonymous unprotected sex, it's dangerous because you can very likely get a sometimes deadly STD but that don't mean you can go around fining people for banging at their own consent.

" Law enforcement is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of the goal of obedience. "I disagree, law enforcement coming from the government comes in the forms of fines, penalties, and maybe an arrest if the crimes are severe enough. Not through intimidation and violence.... This then dismisses the next argument about contradiction and arbitrary exemption since law enforcement doesnt come from violence and intimidation. " if you move past a claimed boundary on the earth, the corporation claims the "right" to use the above-mentioned violence and intimidation in the pursuit of its goals."You are allowed to move beyond boundaries between governments though, they are called passports and it happens all the time. "We can also not call being born into a geographical area as "consent" or acceptance of the legitimacy of that claim any more than being born into slavery is consent to being a slave."But if you dont like your country youre allowed to leave it. You cannot legally leave slaveryPeople dont voluntarily pay taxes but people do understand that the government has the right to collect taxes and use those taxes to pay for services to help the people. So taxes may be involuntary, but they are a necessary evil because people know that without taxes the government wouldnt function. "The core difference between 'government' corporations and other corporations is the idea that these claims are somehow "legitimate", ie, that other corporations can not do these things without being in violation of the law, but institutions which are perceived as 'legitimate", or labeled as "government", can do these things without being in violation of the law."If government corporations mess up they are liable to laws though, they most certainly are not immune. There are laws to regulate government agencies to keep their power in check at a certain amount or laws to maintain how ethical their actions are. Governments uphold laws in ways such that the unalienable rights of people are not violated and government corporations that do break laws are liable to penalties because the government is not all powerful and immune. That being said all governments are NOT criminal organizations because governments are liable to the laws they pass, they do not use intimidation and violence as law enforcement, and because things such as taxes are involuntary but are accepted as necessary evils by people. Now then here are a list of governments that are not criminal organizations. The Monarchy in NarniaThe government of Panem (Hunger Games)The Ministry of Magic (Harry Potter)The Volturi (Twilight)The government of Danistann (Nationstates.org)Those governments are not criminal organizations because even though they create laws and enforce them, have rights over a region, and collect taxes, they are fictional governments and thus are not criminal organizations even though they count as governments.

I'm done arguing with idiots. There is enough here for the judges to decide in my favor. One instance for example of my opponent's low IQ, is that he isn't smart enough to realize that with less SWAT teams, they'll have to allocate their resources differently and only focus on going after serious criminals, such as those in active shooter scenarios, instead of fvcking with my pot dealer.

There is a big difference between the example I presented and the one that you present, namely that mine actually happened whereas yours is made up. You need to actually provide the evidence that this is true for it to be valid or an argument. Besides that, I'll answer the question the scenario brings up. I wouldn't racially profile and target white people for more traffic stops and searches, or whatever race is shown in the study. Instead, I would increase the number of officers and work to actually solve the crimes that were committed. There is no evidence that your method would have any effect at all. Even if I granted that the study was valid and true, there is still no reason to believe that you would actually be able to solve any more crimes. Perhaps if the officers were to illegally search individuals who fit the category the study says commit more crimes it would do something. Even then, you wont catch more than illegal substances people had on their person, which hardly deals with the more harmful crimes committed in society, such as assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes. You can't prevent them by profiling people. Pro says "I would like to remind you that police profiling and how police treat suspects are two different things. A case of harassment, or abuse by a police officer based on race is racism, and has nothing to do with police profiling, which is simply a way of more efficiently deciding who may or may not be a criminal, so all arguments stating that this is an issue are pointless, considering they haven't been linked to the resolution." 1. I provided a very clear link into the resolution in my last speech. "The American Heritage dictionary defines racism as "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." That is PRECISELY what the police profiling is." You yourself say that the profiling is based on the race of the individual. Furthermore, the word demographics in the resolution means(American heritage dictionary) "a portion of a population" which would include different races. Discrimination(same source) is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit." As I said before, that is exactly what police profiling does, it bases treatment of individuals on what category they can be fit into. 2. Police profiling feeds racial discrimination, which you failed to respond to. "By saying that profiling is acceptable, you make racist practices seem more acceptable not only to police, but also to the general public as well. You entrench that racism not just in hearts and minds, but in the very systems of justice that are meant to be unbiased and colorblind." Pro says "I would also like to make note of the fact that the resolution is "Police Profiling is a Good Thing", so unless you believe that all police profiling is bad because black criminals get pulled over more than white criminals I have no further arguments." I think that is a vast oversimplification of my argument, police profiling is a racist practice, no matter which race is targeted. Racism is a dehumanizing practice, and police profiling only feeds that practice. This is shown not only by the evidence from Patricia Williams, but also the story of the young African-American man who was humiliated because of the practice Pro says is a good thing. Absent evidence that a practice has any actual benefits in attaining what it is supposed to, in this case a lower crime rate, even the possibility it could be misused is enough to make it a bad practice. In this case it is far more than that, for not only is there no evidence it works, but multiple reasons it is a dehumanizing practice that goes counter to the ideals of our justice system.

Notice in the statement that I never said you made that claim I only said that you had the mindset. It is relevant because you have the conviction that Snowden has done something wrong and it is by no means a distraction to answer the question. In a court of law a witness or a professional can be asked what they believe pertaining to a case. Such as a psychologist being asked what he believes a persons mental state was at the time of a crime. Its relevant because you have to acknowledge that the arguments you've presented have a paradox within them. par"a"dox /G2;parəG6;d"ks/ noun noun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes 1. a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory. Self-contradictory being the main point. You claim that Snowden has done wrong because he broke an agreement of secrecy however he did uphold his constitutional oath. So to determine if Snowden has done something wrong you have to state which "oath" you believe is more unethical to break. If you believe that his loyalty to secrecy is more important than your right he did do something wrong but if you believe the oath he took to uphold the constitution is more important he did the right thing. Its very black and white because your argument has presented a paradox he did do something wrong. Whether my opponent likes it or not it comes down to where you believe his loyalty should be. Again whether it was an oath or a simple agreement can be disputed all day but whether it was or wasn't isn't the important part. Whats important is Negative, the police break state laws while the NSA have violated our constitutional rights on a nation wide scale. Further more they did so with zero benefit to the American people. No proof has been provided at all that what they did helped protect Americans however the cop's can produce immediate results. For example they take out a suspect threatening hostages. Immediate results clearly for the good of the hostages. It appears my opponent has trouble differentiating the difference between the two. Let me use my opponents mindset for a moment. According to him he believes that Snowden did wrong because he broke the law regardless of his reasons. By this method of thinking cops too are criminals. Cops break the law but have a higher allegiance to the constitution hence their oath to uphold it. Snowden determined that his oath to the constitution is where his allegiance should be. The bottom line is this: Did Snowden break any laws? Yes he did but does that mean that it was wrong? To answer that you first have to answer the question of where his loyalty should be. With the constitution? Or with a secrecy agreement?

BEFORE WE BEGIN PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FIRST ROUND REVOVLES AROUND BRINGING UP YOUR ARGUMENT, SECOND ROUND IS DEDICATED TO ATTACKS, AND IN THE THIRD ROUND NO NEW INFORMATION MAY BE INSERTED, THIS WOULD BE THE SUMMARY ROUND, WHERE YOU STATE ALL THE ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE WON USING INFORMATION YOU --->ALREADY<---- STATED. I will start off with definitions: Probable Cause: a reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well-founded (Merriam-Websters dictionary) Reasonable Suspicion: : an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time (Merriam-Websters dictionary) My stance is with Probable Cause standards in schools, due to three major points. 1. The use of the "reasonable" suspicion standard undermines democratic socialization. As stated by Sarah Forman, a professor at the Detroit Mercy School of Law, states that "the reasonable suspicion standard violates the 4th amendment protection against unwarranted search. " This absurdity expresses to the youth, that order and discipline are given priority over their individual rights. As a result of this, students are made to believe they are second class citizens. These pupils are taught their rights under the constitution in class, and yet they have them violated only to send conflicting messages about the constitution to them. School officials can not expect student to grow up as good citizens when the school authorities disregard these fundamental principles regarding our constitution. 2. "Probable cause would remove Qualified immunity, which would force school administrators to be held accountable for their actions." -Rutledge Devallis of Police Magazine. As the fourth amendment mandates, you need Probable Cause to obtain a search warrant. With this warrant, school administrators that wrongfully search a student may be punished without having qualified immunity to back them up as they would require a warrant to search in the first place, saving young innocent lives from utter humiliation. 3. Probable Cause offers the proper protection for K-12 students." Outside of the school context, a "probable Cause standard" is almost always required." -Mckelwee, Washburn Law Journal. Outside of schools, probable cause is almost always mandatory, and so criminals that have done wrong would receive more rights than innocent pupils that may be found of holding no crime. Comparing criminals on the streets to students learning in classrooms is not only disrespectful, but also alarming. The fact that I must compare criminals to students and their rights is absurd, but with probable cause we can end this and give our youth the rights that they deserve. The points I have made are: 1. Reasonable Suspicion undermines democratic socialization 2. Probable Cause would remove Qualified Immunity 3. Probable Cause offers the proper protection for K-12 students.

we all have private content that we do not want to show anyone, i think that they are violating our privacy and personal interests. when i take a photo, i don't want it to be analysed at the government , i don't want to feel the pressure. imagine capturing a bad picture , and then they saw it and u feel paranoid . your phone, laptop, radio is yours and the government has no right to spy on us . we but these devices for personal use , we buy them for our own personal interest, and just because they are the government doesn't justify their action .

My argument remains the government was instituted to protect our rights not to infringe on them. The fourth amendment and the constitution is a limitation on government it says very cleary that the government cannot intrude on our lives. The will of the majority or the minority does not change this.

So, I have been wondering for a while now, should employees be forced to cover tattoos? I think not because a lot of tattoos are meant for honor and lost loved one, and as long as they are not offensive in racial OR obscene they do not impair my ability to do my job. Also unless i am working at say a church-y store where I am in presence of highly judgmental and prejudice groups with strong viewpoints of having tattoos ( which who with tattoos would subject themselves to that??) Covering tattoos SHOULD NOT be mandatory.


Question: Should Law Enforcement Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

Body cameras should be a requirement for law enforcement officers. Surveillance cameras have been proven to safeguard the rights of citizens against criminal activities. The use of body cameras by police can serve as a deterrent against police brutality and misconduct, and can also provide evidence in criminal investigations. Just as crime cameras help protect citizens, body cameras can help protect both citizens and police officers.

I believe that school uniforms should be required because they promote discipline, school spirit, reduce non-academic distractions, less stress on parents/ guardians, safety, and bullying. I will now explain my reasoning. Discipline: If an adult wore a slobbish outfit to work, they would not have the energy or will to behave professionally. The same goes for students. If a student is wearing whatever they find in their closet, they will not want to try as hard as they normally do. Wearing uniforms will cause students to pay better attention and "earn" the uniform. School Spirit: When all students are wearing the same outfit, they will feel a sense of unity, even if they do not know any other people. Reduce Non-Academic Distractions: "As kids mature and begin to form self-identities, designer status symbols become more and more important as they try fit in with their peers. All too often, children are bullied if they can"t afford the new designer jeans or the latest name brand shoes. Uniforms minimize socioeconomic status between students by removing the option for different types of clothing. In addition, school administrators spend less time tending to dress code infractions, as the rules are clear and concrete." See source. Also, it will prevent guys from ogling over a girl's cleavage, while preventing girls from staring at a guy's butt. Keeping the distraction off of the other gender will allow for kids to pay better attention on the assignment. Less Stress on Parents/Guardians: "After taking a shower, waking up the kids, making breakfast, checking emails, putting in a load of laundry, making snacks for later, brushing teeth, and combing hair, the last thing any parent wants to do is have an early morning battle over what their child is going to wear to school that day. Uniforms reduce morning stress by making the process of getting dressed a no brainer. Students know exactly what they can and cannot wear leaving parents with only one concern" when is the last time those pants were washed? Besides having one less thing to fight about, parents also benefit from not having to buy their children expensive, designer clothes for schools. In the cooler months, students simply add approved outwear and girls add tights or leggings to their basic uniform. And since uniforms do not vary from year to year, students can wear their uniforms for more than one year without fear that they are out of style." See source. Safety: In a school of standards, anyone who isn't wearing a certain color will stick out as an intruder. Also, on school field trips, any kids who get lost will be easily identified. Bullying: While I understand that wearing one outfit every day will not eliminate bullying, it will be one less thing to not have to worry about. Source: http://www.davidsonacademy.com...

Police agencies have traditionally provided services to schools, but it has only been over the past 20 years where the practice of assigning police officers to schools on a full-time basis has become more wide-spread. Criminal justice and education officials sought to expand school safety efforts"which included assigning law enforcement officers to patrol schools"in the wake of a series of high-profile school shootings in the 1990s.4 Expanding the presence of SROs in schools was also partly a response to rising juvenile crime rates during the 1980s and early 1990s. S.R.O (School Resource Officers) are sworn, licensed police officers with the ability to exact Probable cause in school. Not only would the cost of the SRO be consequential to the schools funding but it creates a bad environment as well. The students are put into the justice system most of the time caused by minor offense, not only does that cause complications for both student and parent but it ruins there success in life by giving them a criminal record.

Seeing as how BoP would be shared, as not all police departments only use civil service exams to determine promotions today, I shall defend an only civil service form of promotion. In the free market, this would not be an issue; the agency that hired and promoted better people would do better, the less successful would fail. However, being part of the "public" sector, police can be hired and promoted for political, rather than useful, reasons. A police officer who does not understand the law he/she enforces will be less useful than one who does, and likewise an officer promoted based on political reasons rather than knowledge of the law will be a detriment to society. Pro may contend that good people skills, ability to handle a firearm well, and past records would be important to determining if an officer should be promoted; however, people skills and firearm management are part of the minimum requirements to being a police officer, and if there is no black marks on a record, then why should the person not try for promotion? In essence, an only civil service exam method of promoting police will be better at preventing corruption. I await Pro's Response.

I don't know much about filipino politics but this could be a good time to learn.The major problem I see with anykind of kill on sight law at all, is it gives a lot of power to the government and police that is too easily corropted and abused. For instance if a police officer has a grudge against someone for whatever reason, they could easily kill on sight and say the person was armed. Depending on how organised and generally well-ran the police are there, the officer might have to plant a weapon or claim the individual tried to take the officers weapon, but it would still be relitivly simple and would cause officer accountablity to be extremely hard to manage.

Security cameras are helping lots of people in the world by catching things on tape and recording illegal actions. But one of the most important places that needs security cameras are schools. However, some schools still don't have them. Why are there security cameras in every mall and movie theater but not in every school? Is it because some school districts are too cheap or just plain lazy? We need to get cameras in schools all around the world and stop spending money on things like dances or smart boards. With those things up, we can prevent things like the Virginia Tech attack or bullying.

Thank you for your response. I have realised that there are some important misunderstandings in this debate that need to be cleared up. I realise that the motion title itself is quite ambiguous. As the proponent in this debate is my job to define and set up the meaning of the policy that I intend to put forward. This motion is obviously about the abolition of the 2nd amendment. In order to abolish all firearms (to civilians) I would abolish the 2nd amendment. Therefore, I would no longer be breaking the law by removing guns from all people without good reason. Police, emergency services and armed forces would all still obviously have access to firearms. However, all civilians without a legitimate reason for firearms would have their firearms removed. The legality of the motion would be ensured by democratically repealing the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is outdated and unnecessary and considering the sheer mass of murder caused by the lack of gun control it should be removed. The USA is a very stable country. It has a concrete democracy with absolutely no history of dictatorship or tyranny. Furthermore, surely the arming of civilians makes it equally likely for a rebellion to form which could overthrow a democratic government and impose tyranny? The 2nd amendment works both ways. I argue that both sides are ridiculously unlikely and thus it makes sense to get rid of weapons which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans every year. Next, I really need to analyse the theory that a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun. The truth is that you are more likely to kill a member of your own family than an armed intruder. Based on this, if Americans really want to protect them and their families, disarming themselves actually makes more sense. Furthermore, most criminals will no longer have access to guns because the black market is actually a really difficult market to gain access to. The reason being is that so few other countries allow guns to be possessed legally and thus it is much harder to deal in guns than in things like drugs (which are much more widely spread and less strictly regulated). Most criminals are not really hard-core criminals and so could not get access to a very inconspicuous and dangerous black market. The truth is that wherever guns are banned there are fewer criminals with guns and thus fewer innocent people die from being shot by criminals. In almost every other country on earth, guns are illegal to possess for ordinary people and as a result fewer criminals have them. The police can keep the peace better than armed civilians who are more likely to kill innocent people. The truth is that gun attacks are really, really scary and in most cases armed "good guys" actually run away (and who could blame them - it's terrifying). For the once in a blue moon occasion that one good guy stops an armed drug cartel, there are thousands of other cases where people like him murder people. It is just not a strong enough possibility to rely on. Finally, I want to point out that many of these mass shooters are often mentally ill. They often do not have criminal records and are not actually criminals before committing the crime. In this way, they couldn't get their guns from a black market. Thus, in the event of banning guns these mass shooters, who are not career criminals, would not be able to get access to firearms and therefore not be able to kill people. So, to an extent, many of these especially horrific mass shootings will almost certainly not happen when guns are banned since they do not fit into the category of career criminals anyway. In places where guns are banned it is so difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Therefore, despite the fact that civilians are terrible at using guns to protect themselves and almost always cause more damage, civilians would not even need to be able to defend themselves in the first place as the attackers would not have guns. Hardcore career criminals rarely attack innocent people who they have no connection to but generally attack other criminals who they compete with therefore there is even less of a need for ordinary Americans to protect themselves when the police can do it for them. Moreover, even acknowledging smallest possibility that the police are too late, this still does not matter since the overall damage that is done by the 2nd amendment, in giving the ability for evil people to carry out attacks overweighs the potential for a gun owner to protect themselves on a death toll basis. You seem to have conceded my explanation that wherever there are guns for civilians more people die. So, notwithstanding whatever ways it is possible for a gun to save a life, we know that overall more people die. Guns do not have reasonable practical uses above the myth that they "save lives". They are used for leisure and are not essential commodities but luxury goods that most people would never expect to have a right to own. As I previously explained, although we should fight to improve the mental health of Americans, making everyone responsible and sane enough to own a gun is completely unachievable. There will always be bad people - no matter how much money the government spends on improving mental health. Thus, there will always be evil and ill people who carry out gun attacks. Some people cannot be cured of criminality. Not every gun murder is due to severe mental health problems. But they all have a connection: they all used guns. Thus if we abolish guns, by scrapping the 2nd amendment, these murders might not happen as they could not get the guns to carry them out. Those few criminals that do can be dealt with by the FBI and police and are in a tiny minority anyway just like in so many other countries. Now, I am not an expert on the level of mental health spending in the UK and USA so I have to plead ignorance on this issue to an extent. But what I can say is that there are still many mentally unfit people in Britain that could commit mass murder if they had guns but since they can't get guns, this is one cause of lower gun deaths. Guns in the UK are banned from all people who don't have a need for them like a professional necessity. It is so hard for people to get a gun in the UK and thus fewer people die of gun deaths. This is the same for Sweden, Japan, Australia and Norway and many others. Finally, I need to make a brief statement about the economy. I think that in a debate concerning the lives and rights of people the economy has to play second fiddle. I think we need to put the moral arguments first. But anyway, in the event of banning guns, gun manufacturers can still sell and export to other consumers of guns such as the police, armed forces and farmers home and abroad. The gun producers are not the beating heart of the American economy and thus the effect on the overall economy will not be great. Those that lose jobs in gun production could take their manufacturing skills elsewhere and work in other forms of manufacturing. There will be slight damage, but this is recoverable, minimal and not enough to overturn the mountain of skulls created as a result of the 2nd amendment's existence. To conclude, I have provided a reasonable and workable method of abolishing civilian use of guns. We repeal the second amendment and bring in detailed legislation, interpreted by courts of law, in order to objectively and fairly control who gets a gun. Guns provide little realistic use sufficient to justify their sale to ordinary citizens. Furthermore, they have been proven to be responsible for a high rate of gun murders and because they provide little potential to protect people are undeniably the cause of more murder. The damage to the economy is small and not enough to overturn the moral argument for abolition. The concept of the mythical mega-black market is a complete exaggeration since in almost all other countries this is not the case and most criminals could not obtain illegal firearms. Therefore, abolition is workable and makes sense in order to save people's lives. I would always put the right of people to live above the right of people to own a useless and vile murder-machine.

Pro opens by observing that police officers are just "public servants doing a job that most people would not want but still want to be filled". First, I'm claiming that police officers should quit and work for the private sector. There are already about 50% more private security guards than public police [1] [2]. Second, pro talks about wasted training (as if this were really on everybody's mind when they're getting shot at), and again, this can be permutated into my "join the private security industry or play nice" counterplan. =========== Con Case =========== A) Police Attack Innocent People 1) Arresting someone means you physically subdue and restrain them. That's "attacking". Police attack and arrest anyone who violate government laws, which may or may not be just. My position is that the majority of these laws are unjust, such as drug laws. My opponent doesn't want to get dragged into the drug war discussion but too bad. Its probably the major reason why police get shot at in the first place, so it is highly topical. It also accounts for a large majority of the people in prison. So you have police trying to kidnap people who aren't hurting anyone. They have the right to self defense against the police officer, so they can kill him. The police officer has no right to be messing with them in the first place, so he has no right to self defense. Resolution negated. 2) Pro says this argument doesn't matter because hippies and teenagers aren't armed. They could be... but the point is that they have a RIGHT to shoot the police officer. Pro goes on to say that police officers have a right to apprehend drug users because "possession of illegal drugs is not permitted in the US". This is called an "Appeal to Authority". If the US government says that redheads are allowed to be raped, they STILL have the right to self defense that transcends whatever the f*cks in Washington decide. So non-violent drug users, like redheads, have a right to self defense no matter what US "law" says. Police officers upholding unjust laws have forfeited their rights. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 3) Pro doesn't rebut that police protect the country's largest and most violent criminal organization. In addition to the massive amount of taxes they take and give to large corporations, they've killed literally millions of people for no given reason... including the aftermath of the first Iraq War, deadly injections of "foreign aid"[3] and many terrorist campaigns in South America and Africa [4]. Pro's only defense of the police who protect these genocidal maniacs is that they protect US citizens as well. This is incredibly shortsighted, and even if police were giving me foot rubs every day, it would not be enough to make up for their support of government thugs. Furthermore, if police really WERE protecting my rights, there would be almost no private security industry. Except there is... and its much larger than the public security industry. See above citations. I guess public police just chase down druggies and really aren't all that essential to preventing muggings and home burglaries. Pro then goes on to say he doesn't want to debate anarchy vs statism. That's fine. I'll just assume the "minarchist" or minimal, nightwatchman state. In either case, the just role of police officers is restricted to protecting people's libertarian rights, not hunting down peaceful drug users. He claims that my "argument stems from an inherent hatred of the government", but I'd be really happy with a minarchist state. Pro then brings up the "if you don't like it, leave" argument... which is totally peripheral, especially since I just conceded minarchy. Regardless, Pro seems to think that the US government can do literally anything to me, and as long as I stay put, that means I "consent". Does this mean I can break into his house, start stealing his stuff, and he "consents" as long as I give him the option to move? I think not. C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible 4) Pro's rebuttal of this sub point is particularly weak. If you don't buy all the ra-ra anti government stuff, please just vote off this. Pro says that "Just Apprehenders do not have the right to make legal arrests in this country. If a LEO is to be arrested, for whatever reason, then the victim should call the proper authorities." He's imagining that just apprehenders are vigilantes. They don't have to be... but even if you buy that "the proper authorities" are the only people who can arrest police officers, they STILL have to threaten the rogue police officer with deadly force. He doesn't have a right to shoot back if, from hypothesis, he ought to go to jail. ================ Concluding Argument ================ Pro concludes that people who draw weapons on police officers are stupid and deserve to die. This G.I. Joe theory of public enforcement is completely devoid of substance or context. In reality, Police are out there to kidnap innocent drug users and protect the pigs in office. Even if you don't buy the drug war angle, you still have to believe that it CAN BE JUST for people to rise up against their governments... That there are contexts where shooting a police officer is the morally just and correct thing to do. Pro's blind third grade "police are the good guys" chant paints over a much more sinister and complicated reality. The long and short is that being a police officer doesn't give you extra moral rights over other human beings. The absolutism of the resolution is easily negated. [1]http://www.bls.gov... [2]http://www.bls.gov... [3]http://www.cato.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Current laws are not enforced concerning firearms. New ones will not be enforced efficiently either.People have the right to protect themselves from terrorists, murderers, rapists, and even our own government. Our government can't rid the world of 30-40,000 ISIS militants. How would they stop 350,000,000 angry Americans when the military itself would be related to these armed people by blood? I trust the American people to know when to act in such matters, not the corrupt government of the United States.We will get guns, laws or not. We will make them and stockpile them if we must. The government will never truely be in control, nor should it be. We are this nation, not them. We have our own checks and balances by being armed and outnumbering the U.S. military 300 to 1. And even within the military, most would defect with no desire to kill their mom's, dad's and family. The government will never win, so it can just accept it. It's not in control. We are.

You have yet to even answer my simple question then should guns be registered? And actually everything i just said is completely relevant becuase it explains why i feel like you should not have to have guns registered! You havent even given me any arguement! All you said is my facts are irrlevent! Thats not an arguement! The answer to my question is NO guns should not be registered in the united atates BECAUSE i feel like it will lead to confisation just like it happened in many other countries in the 20th century including germany the soviet union and china and many more.... these countries all enacted gun registraion then gun confiscation then genocide! So please feel free to tell me why you feel like guns need to be registered in the united states!

Accepted. I think school uniforms should be issued but only optional to wear.


Question: Should Law Enforcement Be Required to Wear Body Cameras?

Surveillance cameras
Surveillance cameras assist in enhancing the public's feeling of security and safety.

Seeing as how BoP would be shared, as not all police departments only use civil service exams to determine promotions today, I shall defend an only civil service form of promotion. In the free market, this would not be an issue; the agency that hired and promoted better people would do better, the less successful would fail. However, being part of the "public" sector, police can be hired and promoted for political, rather than useful, reasons. A police officer who does not understand the law he/she enforces will be less useful than one who does, and likewise an officer promoted based on political reasons rather than knowledge of the law will be a detriment to society. Pro may contend that good people skills, ability to handle a firearm well, and past records would be important to determining if an officer should be promoted; however, people skills and firearm management are part of the minimum requirements to being a police officer, and if there is no black marks on a record, then why should the person not try for promotion? In essence, an only civil service exam method of promoting police will be better at preventing corruption. I await Pro's Response.

Closing Argument ------------------------- Well, congratulations. I do believe that neither of us have gained much ground here. I did quite enjoy the discussion, and, perhaps we could continue it in another venue? Anyway though, I don't really have many points to argue other than- Assortment of arguments ------------------------------ It just hit me. The time for implementation. You said the work could be subdivided among different regions, but, even still, how would the mask creators and local shops keep up with this influx of traffic? Well, on top of that what about those who don't wish to participate in this system? You said that people should be fined on the basis of them not wishing to wear their masks! We should encourage tolerance towards ugly people rather than repression of their natural trait. While they yes may be an eyesore, you said it yourself, we should see people for their merit, not their appearance. A mask would simply hide this fact further burying it below an extra layer of superficial apparel. But, in any event, we must let the voters decide. To mask, or not to mask That is our question

Since con has forfeited I shall continue. Guns should be available to the law abiding public to give them a chance against a criminal/criminals who wish to do them harm. The average 911 response time is slowing, with no signs of speedy up(1.) So with that knowledge, how can you rely on the police to protect you in a situation? 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

My opponent has chossen to forfeit his chance to oppose my argument. But I would just like to say that by taking away a persons choice to wear what they want, you also take a little bit of a persons free will along with it. I think that if private schools want to have uniforms that is great! No person attending a public school though should be forced to wear a certain outfit everyday.

The requirements for CCW regulations within each individual jurisdiction should not be as complex . The implementation of Reciprocity legislation should standardize the requirements once and for all . Currently many states don't even grant you the bureaucratic mechanism for applying for a CCW if you're from a different state . Our Constitution grants us the Right to bear arms and the right for Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."... If individuals have the right to bear arms and free to move from and about . Doesn't local gun control laws hinders that freedom ? . My stance with the establishment of Reciprocity of CCW permits among states would be to resolve the issues created by leftist chauvinist authoritarian infiltrated in law enforcement agencies and draconian zealots in the Judicial system prosecuting law abiding citizens moving from and about while legally in possession of a fire arm . Far apart from what the anti gun movement would like to lead you to believe . Legal gun owners are the most law abiding citizens this country haves .

Well the fact that there's a law doesn't mean that it ought to be that way. Slavery used to be legal as well. While I agree with vaccines. We can't start forcing medical treatment on people morally speaking. It violates autonomy and people are allowed to decide for themselves and for their kids. It's the same argument I would make for abortion. While I think it should be a certain way, Changing the law won't help. If you want less antivaxxers, Then you have to educate people. Brining the hammer down will just make things worse. Also, You didn't refute my point about the fact that the government enforcement of mandatory vaccines could actually force people to get harmful vaccines if one is ever made. Allowing informed consent allows parents to wave a particular vaccine if it is made with harmful materials. Your floor

In 1997, Radiohead demanded: "Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths. He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio." http://www.youtube.com... However, little did they know that their request would fall on deaf ears, as there were no karma police then and, indeed, over ten years later, there is still no such law enforcement agency. But we need one. On my way to work this morning, neo-fascist, self-opinionated Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn (1) got on the same tube as me and proceeded to verbally spew his right-wing vitriol right around the carriage, ostensibly "talking" to his female companion, but secretly trying to impress the other passengers with his vile and offensive rhetoric. If you have ever been on a tube during the morning rush hour, you will know that although the trains are packed to the rafters, there is almost no talking as everybody is trying to read their newspapers and most passengers respect other people's right to do so in peace and quiet. But every now and again, you get some ignorant, loud-mouthed gobshites on who think everybody around them would really, really love to listen to their inane, banal conversations. These are the same type of people you get on trams, buses and overland trains and who talk loudly on their mobile phones about Suzie's new boyfriend or what Katie's ballet instructor said about her pirouettes, or whatever. Who cares? Why don't they keep their private conversations private? Why don't they either keep their voices down or, better still, make the call elsewhere? The thing is, if you are sitting opposite a big fat ugly person you can always close your eyes, but if you're sitting opposite some noisy half-wit, you can't close your ears – you just have to sit there and listen to them drivel on. No, it's got to stop. It's time to introduce a karma police force on public transport to literally keep the peace. Like air marshals on ‘planes, they should be plain-clothed and pose as ordinary passengers. However, as soon as some ignorant wanker starts mouthing off they should identify themselves and tell the offending passenger to shut the hell up or else. (2) Clearly, there will be some properly gobby passengers who will answer back and say something like "don't tell me to shut up, Hitler" and carry on jabbering away. These offenders must be dealt with severely and summarily. Yes, the karma police should be tooled up with Tasers so that they can tame any uncooperative commuters' tongues with a few thousand volts and I hereby commend this reasonable and measured proposal to the House. Thank you. (1)http://www.richardlittlejohn.com... (2)Acknoledgment to theLwerd for inspiring this line!

I will first start by addressing your issue of allowing the citizens to arm themselves to the same extent as the government to protect themselves against it. If every citizen was allowed to buy every piece of military hardware the government has we would have a continuous civil war going on. The guy does like the winner of an election and launches a few artillery rounds at the white house. I realize this example is extreme, but so is your claim that there should be no limits on gun and weapon control. You said, "You could argue that they didn't have full-autos back then, but neither did the military." Well the government has nuclear bombs (which only a small number of countries possess) but like you said we should be able to defend yourself against the government on equal grounds. Well the government has chains of command and they do not randomly go crazy and massacre people in the streets or kill citizens on a daily basis. Now I"m not saying the government might not become oppressive in the future, but this would be exceedingly hard under the present constitution and they don"t shoot people daily because they don"t like what side of the town you live on. Imagine if every gun crime was done with a mini gun, like you talked about. Gang battles would evolve to wars. Whenever someone got mad they could just nuke Washington. Sure they would have to suffer the consequences for the millions of people just killed, but they still killed millions of people. It"s the government"s job to protect the welfare of society and they cannot do that if the citizens processed the same weapons as they did in the off chance, one day in the future, the government was oppressing them. Citizens do not have the right to make a military which is what you would be allowing if you give them the same weapons as the government. N.A.T.O. is the person who watches the watchmen. It"s pretty simple. When there is something wrong in another country N.A.T.O. votes whether it"s wrong and if it should help. They have put down many tyrannical governments throughout history, which is their purpose. Mandatory waiting periods will stop rash decision, in the heat of the moment. If the person is forced to wait a week before killing his mom there might be a change in thought, where rational thought is reacquired. You specifically said in your argument that gun sales and gun crime is going up. If you ask me and pretty much every person in the world if they see a correlation there they will say yes. You say overall crime is going down, that"s good, but I"d rather someone steal my car then shoot me. There are more guns and more gun crime. There is a positive correlation there. Now, theoretically if there were significantly fewer guns there, most likely, would be less gun crime. It doesn"t take a rocket scientist to understand that more guns equal more gun crime and more gun violence.

My opponent states that, "people don't want to wear uniform because they have to wear it. If they were allowed to wear what they want then they would soon get bored of it. " Look at almost any school where people are not forced to wear a uniform. Do they wear uniforms? No. Do you know why? Because they don't like uniforms, whether they are enforced, or not. If you bring up the point of JROTC, they only wear it once a week, which is different from a full time uniform. My opponent then states, "you should be proud of the school you attend and should be willing to wear part of the uniform so as people know which school you go to and that you are proud to. " I am not proud of my school. Not at all. Why should I be forced to wear the uniform? The only reason I don't trandsfer to a different one is because of certain classes only offered at this high school in my area. If you want to wear you school colors of red and gold (or whatever they may be) then go right ahead. I have no problem with that. That is your CHOICE. However, when it becomes a mandate, not a choice, then I have a problem with that, as it takes away my right to expression of self. Also, if people know what school you go to, and they hate all members of that school, because they got beaten by them in a sports game or something, you could get beaten up for wearing that uniform. I await my opponents next argument.

Here' s a real life example. I am looking for you big time debaters to tell your position, either way. It's 5:00pm and a beautiful, mint condition Maserati enters Route One (the road from Maine to Florida). This car is unusual in the town but it is a wealthy seaside town. The car travels in traffic about 1/4 mile on that road, where some construction is taking place, so no one is speeding. The car, driving about 20 miles per hour, passes a police car parked perpendicularly. The police pulls out behind the car and then pulls the car over. When the officer is confronted and asked why she pulled the car over, she answers because the car was not registered, a fact she would only know by running the plate. To me this is a type of profiling, as the officer had no probable cause to pull the driver over and ran the plate for no reason.