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

In the realm of law enforcement within the United States, the mandatory use of body cameras during civilian encounters is a necessity. My adversary raises a pertinent concern about privacy, which is indeed a significant issue. However, the extent of this issue might be overstated. My adversary's worry seems to center around the general public's access to body camera footage, specifically referencing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It's crucial to note that the FOIA has numerous exceptions, and the public does not have an unrestricted right to all government records. These exceptions include:

1. Information that could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.
2. Data that could deprive someone of a fair trial.
3. Information that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
4. Data that could reveal the identity of a confidential source.
5. Techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.
6. Information that could endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

The government has already taken measures to protect the privacy of the general public. For instance, one cannot file an FOIA request to obtain footage of DUI arrests without a valid reason. If, however, one were a lawyer representing a client in a case against an alleged police malpractice, obtaining such footage would be straightforward. (Source: http://www.foia.gov...)

Regarding informants and traumatized victims, they have no reason to fear that sensitive information will become public knowledge, given the aforementioned exemptions. Law enforcement should be required to inform the public about the FOIA's exemptions. In the case of a young child, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. It's highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur immediately after a traumatic event. First responders are not there to interrogate but to provide assistance. Ultimately, this concern is not about body cameras but about policy.

Concerning police officers and their discretion, the higher-ups in law enforcement agencies are well aware of the critical role discretion plays. Discretion can be both good and bad, and it's the responsibility of these hierarchies to evaluate law enforcement officers based on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be instrumental in preventing the misuse of discretion. Your specific example illustrates a poor exercise of discretion. The elderly woman had an illegal firearm, which she could have registered easily. She might have had questionable motives for possessing an unregistered weapon. If that weapon were used in a crime, tracing it could become challenging. With body cameras in place, a supervisor could review the footage, identify the officer's mistake, and facilitate a

My opponent has closed her account, so I will not be posting an argument in round three. That would be an opinionated rant, not a debate. Instead, I will give a simple closing argument in this round. It would very likely be different if this debate had continued as planned, but based on what has been said to this point, this is the best possible conclusion (without me adding unanswerable, undefendable points). Based on the points made by my opponent (which are the only ones we can take into account at this point), there is no good reason for people outside of the police or military to own guns, or at least no reason that is not a contradiction on some level. Thank you.

" 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.

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

Thank you for this opportunity. Although there is rule violations, the rule and regulations still do a lot to protect us. It may seem like they don't work, but every day these rules stop evil people killing innocent civilians. Although it is true that terrorist attacks happen every day, but you are wrong in your argument. These rules stop a lot of the attacks, but not all.

My opponent makes the claim that we need security cameras installed in school to catch illegal acts and that since there are security camera's in malls and movie theater's they should also be in schools. He goes on to claim they can prevent illegal activity, prevent bullying, and even school shootings. My rebuttal's 1. Security camera's are expensive to buy, install and maintain. The cost of a good security camera can cost up to hundred's of dollars and it also would cost another large sum to install and run them . [1] In a time when schools across the country are having budget cuts, good security cameras costing up to 1000 dollars each would be a huge financial burden on the school which would more than likely result in the lay-offs of employee's, academic classes being dropped, extracurricular activities such as band and athletics being eliminated, etc. Simply to buy security camera's. 2. Security camera's would be useless. My opponent also claims that security camera's could stop school shootings as well. In order for camera's to prevent a school shooting, the school's we all need to hire armed security guards to constantly monitor the camera's and act in such an event. School shootings are also highly unlikely as only a handful occur in the U. S. every year which normally result in either no casualties or mere injuries and many time are perpetrated by adults who simply walk onto campus, a situation where cameras will have no effect. [2] A better way to prevent school shootings would be to allow teachers to have permits to carry their weapons at home on campus. This would not cost any money at all as the teachers would simply bring weapons from home. This would turn a significant amount of teachers into persons with the ability to put down an armed intruder or student faster than a single guard watching the screens of dozens of live security camera's. Many schools in the U. S. are already following this method as well as countries such as Israel and Thailand [3] Most if not all illegal activity on school campuses, do not occur out in the open such as in the quad, in the gym, etc. They occur in the bathrooms, the locker rooms, etc. The sale or use of illegal drugs, weapons, etc occur in those private areas. In order to make security cameras somewhat worthwhile, we would need to install security cameras in those areas. The girl's locker room, the boy's bathroom stalls, etc would need cameras. It would be extremely inappropriate and a major violation of personal privacy if the students were forced to appear naked, half dressed, and using the restrooms to school personnel. Young females and males should not be forced to appear nude, half dressed, etc to school officials. It is a violation of personal privacy and is extremely demeaning and stressful to students, who will now know that their math or science teacher has seen how large their breasts are, or who will now know how small their penis is, or how fat they are, or how skinny they are, etc. For these reasons security cameras are extremely costly, and in order to avoid the violation of the personal and intimate privacy of students, cannot be placed in the areas where illegal activity can occur the most. Vote Con [1] . http://www.supercircuits.com... (Costs of various security cameras. Prices range from over $250 to $1000+ each. ) [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (List of school shootings) [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Schools with "armed classrooms" have already been implemented in the U. S. , Israel, and Thailand. )

I believe that police profiling is not a bad thing, and back my belief with numerous reasons. For this debate we will go by this definition of police profiling - The use of demographics and statistics by law enforcement to deter, prevent, and apprehend criminals. Police profiling is effective; Police profiling is a very effective way of catching criminals and preventing crime, and allows the police to focus on areas where crime is high, and needs to be prevented. Racial Profiling isn't racist; Whether black, white, or hispanic, a criminal is a criminal, and if more black people than hispanics commit crime, the police should focus do their duty which is to protect citizens, and make attempts to stop crime, so if the black people commit the crime, stop the black people, if the white people are the majority of criminals, stop the white people. To say that racial profiling is bad is like saying that high crime areas should be treated the same as crime free areas, and puts the lives of citizens at risk. -I am sorry if this seems at all racist, it is simply meant to justify what our law enforcement officers do to protect us

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.

"do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished?" Define crime, because I am almost certain our definitions are not the same. "would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check?" No I would not. For the government (a small group compared to the general public) to control the populace would cause our government to be a type of oligarchy. In a way the people keep themselves in check by making local laws and by keeping a sense of justice in a community. An anarchist community survives in a similar way by the will of the people to live in a just community. Because of this, I do not believe it is necessary to keep the people in check, and if I do not believe it is needed, then by proxy I do not believe it is their job. On a different note, the people do not really hold enough power to have a need to be kept in check. They vote, but through the dispersal of abilities the individual loses most destructive power, unlike government officials who have been given extreme amounts of harmful capabilities. With the amount of power they have and the amount of officials, they have a stronger power with more of a need to be kept "in check". I am realizing, now that I myself have used the term "in check", that it is a term mildly depending on definition. My apologies for not realizing it on my part. "it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the verdict, not the judge, correct?" Yes it is the jury. They make the final decision. I have nothing more to say to that. "can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust?" Alright. First I have to wonder if we are only talking about laws, or if we are talking about precepts as well. For instance there is the precept that income tax is required of a person, though no where in any book of law is it written that we must pay income tax. I invite you to look for yourself if you do not believe me. This is a precept though, but you can still be put in prison just as easily for it. There's wiretapping which leads into "thought crime". That's an interesting one. President Bush was the first to really push this topic. In short, if they suspect you may be thinking of committing a crime, then they can charge you. There's one law about to be passed here in Oklahoma that states that if a minor dies from alcohol abuse on your property, you are then charged with life in prison under the assumption that you are guilty of murder until you can prove yourself innocent. Is it to be believed that you are now guilty until proven innocent? I hardly think that seems accurate. One other question to get this straight, do you want laws affecting the individual, or laws affecting a group, federal laws, or state laws? My main point of confusion goes back to my original question of, do you want precepts, or do you want legitimate laws. If you could please clarify this, then I would be more than happy to respond with an appropriate answer. "are the government not made up of the american people?" Your last question strikes me as being a bit open ended, but I will do my best to explain my answer. Though our government, in principle, is designed to be controlled by the people, it isn't quite so today. Referring back to my statement on how corporations and lobbyists are considered as one person. This removes the individual right of the people making up the corporation. Also take a look at campaign finance reform. An individual can only give a certain amount of money to a candidate while a corporation can give far more. So the corporation has more power than the individual. Therefor I would almost say that the government is made up of corporations and groups, which are made of people. Though these are made up of the people, it is impossible for the individual to be entirely represented, just as it is impossible to represent every citizen simply because of the ration between citizens and reps. So, in a way, the government is made up of the people, but in another way it is not. Things in the government have been done without the people's knowledge as well, so the government currently is not what the people necessarily intended, so because of that alone the government isn't made up purely of the people's ideas. I apologize for rambling, but I believe it was all relevant. I'm almost sure my answers will not satisfy you. I wrote them too quickly and didn't have a chance to explain them as thoroughly as I'd like for lack of time. I'm very sorry for that.

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.

Just to make it clear, this is the definition of racial profiling: Racial profiling is the use of an individual's race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. stop and search or arrest). Racial Profiling is mortally wrong.Racial Profiling is simply wrong in a society like ours. America is SUPPOSED to be a democracy and have equal rights to individuals. However, racial profiling is violating equal rights and is racist. Racial profiling is also against the 4th ammendment and many others because one's race is no reasonable reason to search.If somebody is a certain skin color, why should they be judged so harshly on just because of other people of his race? (S)he can't help it, (s)he was born with that certain skin color and it's not his/her fault that some people of their race decide to commit crimes. Racial profiling means less equality. Somebody is judged based on the genes they were BORN with. It's like the flawed system of fuedalism in England a long time ago. You could be born as a noble and stay like that your whole life and live a great life. You could also be born as a peasant and almost never escape the class. The same logic implies here. People should not be accused based on how they were born, it's not logical. There could be a white man who commits a lot of crimes and a black man who abides by most laws. Yet, the white is at less risk then the black for the very few laws he broke. White people commit the worst crimes and everybody is yet terrified of black people. The black people as criminals stereotype is completely false and is a hoax. The stereotype like this came back then when slavery was common and that is not the fault of blacks. I have provided evidence for this claim in one of my sources. Blacks are assumed to commit all the crimes but nobody pays attention to whites and asians who may commit crimes. sourceshttp://www.louisianaweekly.com...http://www.alternet.org...http://reason.com...http://www.civilrights.org...http://colorlines.com...http://heinonline.org...=http://thesocietypages.org...


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

Police Conduct and Accountability
The American principle of peace through strength sometimes manifests in unfortunate ways, with police officers increasingly facing allegations of brutality. If law enforcement consistently refrained from using excessive force, the public would likely have more confidence in their decisions. A more harmonious society could be achieved where both citizens and authorities coexist peacefully, if police tactics were more restrained and focused on de-escalation techniques. This would help to rebuild trust between the community and the police force, ensuring a safer environment for all.

I don't believe that women or trans-people are specifically targeted for any reason at all. Your proposal is quite dangerous already. Yes, women are biologically weaker doesn't mean that they should all be armed. With SJWs and Antifa running around it would just cause more senseless violence. Your argument about transgender people is utterly stupid as you state that people murder them in hate crimes, no people don't. If there is anything a person should do is help they get they delusions of being something that they are not. Most people are not stupid well not enough to ignore basic biology and transgenderism is based on a mental disorder, so get a psychologist. Your argument on single mothers is fine and makes a bit of sense stating that they need to protect their children. But stating girls are less like to commit crimes is not an argument. "Women are more likely than men to be in prison for fraud and robbery, while men are more apt to have committed violent crimes. Almost one-third of all female prisoners are behind bars on property charges vs 18 percent of male prisoners, according to 2012 Bureau of Justice statistics." - www.vocativ.com/usa/justice-usa/crimes-women-commit-most-often/index.html, as you can see men are more responsible for violent crimes than women, end of the story. You also stated aggression between the sexes, females are less aggressive while males are more, not true. Females are more verbally aggressive than males but males are physical more aggressive. Stating one is while other not is untrue. My source www.nytimes.com/1983/06/20/style/aggression-still-a-stronger-trait-for-males.html also states that most physical aggression among males are other males, so you saying females are getting attack is only applied to a small minority. Adding to my point most physical aggression among women are found against their spouse, children or siblings and it is more likely to happen in their household. Connecting this fact to you your argument about single mothers, I believe not. Should we arm females? No, not without a license/permit/certification by police. P.S who wants are feminist with a gun in her hand vote for the other person

Cost "Do you think all security cameras cost $1000? "No, I very clearly stated in the first round that they cost from 250 to 1000 dollars depending on quality. "Oh yeah, every school need giant 3D boards to watch movies. "You've offered no evidence whatsoever that they are attempting to have 3D boards in every school to watch movies. Your entire case built against smart boards rests on your own personal assertions and nothing more. You have failed to find sources showing that schools are using them for ridiculous reasons such as for spanish classes or watching movies. You have failed to find sources showing that they aren't effective learning devices. Therefore your case against smartboards has crumbled. You have also made little attempt to mask the fact that you are asking schools to spend thousands of dollars to buy expensive and unnecessary security cameras. Security (Armed situations)I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but over 1 million americans have a job in the U. S. armed forces. These employees have assault rifles, fighter jets, tanks, etc all at their place of work. How many of them have gone on homicidal rampages? You can probably only name the Fort Hood Shooting. The fact of the matter is that millions of Americans own guns, are responsible gun owners, and don't start going Rambo on children when they get mad. For this fact you have no reason to stand on the argument that you fear a teacher is going to go on a rampage. I want gun owning teachers to bring their firearms to school for defending the children if need be. Just as I want military personel to use their firearms for defense if need be. To make the argument that we should disarm responsible gun owning teachers who have the purpose of defending their students is as ridiculous as making the argument we should disarm the military who have the purpose of defending U. S. soild as well as U. S. interests abroad. Should we also disarm police officers as well? Think about, police officers carrying guns walk around in public with a pistol in their holster easy for anyone to grab. Just as teachers walk around campus carrying guns in public. Your argument is just as ludicrous. For your reasons against arming teachers, a notion that has become a reality in many U. S. and Israeli schools already, we should disarm the U. S. military as well as Law enforcement. I very clearly stated that teachers who have guns at home should be allowed to bring them. People don't go out buying revolvers to keep where they live if they don't know how to use them. "In conclusion, my opponent thinks guns can solve all our problems. "Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed were you explained how security cameras, PHYSICALLY STOPPED GUN WIELDING MANIACS! !! This is a scenario you brought up. You specifically said that we need security cameras to prevent school shootings like Virginia Tech. You make the claim that we need cameras to prevent school shootings, and yet you give no explanation how they will actually stop a school shooting. You know how school shootings end? They end when either the police or the the shooter themself, blows out the brains of the shooter. Either way, guns end school school shootings, not cameras. Security (misc)I was against the idea of spending money hiring security personel, but janitors have the job of keeping school grounds sanitary and administrative personel have the job of running schools. You have yet to prove that they have time to watch security cameras all day while they are already doing the jobs they are paid to do. Your claim that "The people at the front office could watch the cameras because they're not doing anything half the time! ", is without basis and again, merely assertion. BullyingI'm not asking for children to fight with others that are twice as large. I'm asking them to report misconduct and misbehavior from fellow classmates to administrative personel. It would save schools thousands of dollars and possibly the jobs of other school employees. That is not an unreasonable request. I never said they were wimps, you are putting words in my mouth, I said that it did not make sense that taxpayers should be forced to spend thousands of dollars on cameras when kids being bullied aren't willing to report the bullying. Privacy"Who said they have to be put in bathrooms"Anyone with common sence knows that when people conduct illegal activity, they conduct it in privacy. Students don't sell drugs in the principles office, not out on the quad during passing period, etc. Students use and sell drugs in bathrooms were it is private. In order to catch a decent amount of illegal activity, cameras need to be placed in bathrooms, which is a violation of personal privacy. Therefore cameras cannot catch illegal activity. ConclusionMy opponents claims regarding the futility of Smartboards are mere assertions. My opponents claims regarding the laziness of school employees are mere assertionsMy opponent says that cameras won't be placed in school bathrooms, the areas were nearly all illegal activity on school occurs. My opponent thinks it is reasonable to have the taxpayer shell out millions nation wide for security cameras to stop bullying, when children should be reporting it themselves to the school. My opponent has not given any explaination as to how security cameras will stop school shootings while she opposes the presence of firearms on campus. Which, by the way, is becoming a method of preventing school shootings in my already stateded sources. All in all my opponent has not shown that security cameras can catch illegal activity when she doesn't want them planted in the areas where illegal activy occurs, that security camears do a damn thing to prevent school shootings other than simply record the massacre, that security cameras are not a violation of personal privacy and that security camera's are worth the cost when they don't prevent illegal activity and when you need to hire additional personel to monitor them.

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 argument that there is never a valid reason for a civilian police force to possess military technology is na"ve. The problem lies not with the equipment but rather with judicious use thereof as well as with the quality of the our civic officers. I am not arguing that Keene, NH needs a tank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) but not all militarization in the police force is bad or unwarranted.

Yes, I stand by all I have claimed. Reforming the laws in the way which you want to reform them is not the solution to the problem. Making a law stricter towards criminals will reduce criminal activity, but you want to make the law less strict, which would make many people happier, including criminals. Reforming the system which enforces the law of the land is indeed better than reforming the original law. The system that enforces the law (in this case, the police) did not create the law, so the law is not the system. Actually, if police officers are trained properly then there are no loopholes because according to you and your new source, it is the officers who are the problem. So once again, the federal government's authority has little to do with the faults of the police officers who cannot properly enforce the law of the land. The federal government created the law for the people, not to abuse them. It is not responsible if the state governments have corrupt officers working for the police departments. Thus, there is no reason for its authority to be decreased. Unfortunately this is the last round so you will not be able to explain to me how the federal government is at fault with how that individual officer (working for the state government, not the federal) cruelly arrested the girl. What happened would not have happened if a reasonable, properly trained officer stopped her so is the federal government's authority to blame? Not at all. It is that one officer who decided to ruin the girl's life and his supervisors are also the responsibility of the state government, not the federal. The policy being redundantly "very complex and complicated" does not make it relevant. My previous argument stands as to why stop and frisk is irrelevant to this particular debate. Current situations of countries: 1) Nation's debt: yes, every time Obama smiles it increases by $100B. However, decreasing the authority of the federal government will not help lower it. In fact, if the authority of the federal government increased then the national debt would have more of a chance of going down. For example, if the federal government enforced much higher taxes nationwide then the taxpayers would go far in helping the nation's financial status (yes I know this sounds horrible and would cause riots, but it would work). 2) The unemployment rate is dropping, so the federal government must be doing something right, right? Right. 3) Your source does not measure economic stand. It measures economic freedom. A higher economic freedom does not mean a better economy or economic stand. If that was the case then Estonia would have a better economy than the U.S. I think we can agree that Estonia does not have a higher economic stand, just more economic freedom. 4) Based on more recent figures, the rates of people without health care are dropping. Another point for the federal government. http://www.census.gov... http://www.census.gov... Based on the evidence that both you and I provided, the amount of authority that the federal government currently possesses is not harming the nation. My original premise stands: the authority of the federal government helps the nation run smoothly and properly. There is no guarantee based on anything you said that indicates that substantially decreasing the federal government's authority would be beneficial. There is no evidence provided of the federal government abusing its power, only of police institutions which are the responsibility of state governments. There is also no evidence of anyone involved in the federal government abusing their power for own's beneficiary. Each of your arguments spoke of policing issues, not those of the federal government. For the final time, the NYPD is the New York State's responsibility, not the federal government's. Instead of reforming the entire national legal system just so NY cops can be competent at their jobs, the issue must be addressed by NY state itself. C) The U.S. federal government should not substantially decrease its authority.

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.

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.

This is a debate about what "should" be done. If one debates the topic "Resolved: People should brush their teeth every morning," that is debating whether it is a good idea or not, not whether it ought to be made a law. What we are debating here is whether school uniforms are a good idea or not. 1) The original contention was that the policy "promotes identity with the school and class, ... so they are more likely to help each other succeed." Con appears to grant that it works for sports teams and the military, but ultimately claimed that education had no aspects other than individual performance. Given a list of team aspects, Con argued " ... when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom." This is non-responsive, and it is wrong to suppose that only factors occurring in the classroom affect the quality of education. Uniforms promote unity of purpose, and that affects individual performance. Note that even gang members wear identifiable colors or styles because they are well aware it promotes unity of purpose, even though their purpose is anti-social. Con introduces a new argument that we should not implement any educational policy that is not proved effective. There is ample evidence the policy is effective, as Con was only able to produce one bogus study to the contrary (discussed below). However, Con's contention, if followed, makes it impossible to ever improve education, because to prove a policy effective it has to be tried, and Con asserts that we should never try anything that hasn't been proved. Con abandoned arguments that uniforms should not be required because some students wouldn't like them. 2) The second reason reason was that the policy removes a distraction and helps focus. Con argued that other distractions are possible, but made no argument that distractions would not be reduced. Examples of costume helping focus were cited, notably the tradition of judges wearing robes. Con did not rebut any example or the conclusion. Con argued that both that uniforms would mark students as targets after school, and that students would change out of their uniforms the minute that school ended. Con gave no reason why changing out of uniforms would not solve the problem he supposed, if it ever occurred. Con argues that having students decide how to dress under guidelines promotes maturity. This supposes that creativity is the major mark of maturity, not self-discipline, a wrong assumption. Con offers no evidence that students avoid immature behavior went given nothing more than guidelines. Clearly, the opposite is true. Boys seek $200 sneakers and girls seek a closet full of fashions. Without a requirement for discipline, students tend to behave with less discipline. 3) The third reason is that "It teaches boys to be neat and girls to be attractive." Con argues that social pressure will make students conform to standards of neatness and attractiveness, but that all social pressure constitutes "bullying." There is no doubt that students will always apply and respond to social pressure, the problem is therefore to attempt to channel social pressure on to desirable paths. It is better to have students pressuring each other to be neat, that to pursuit foolish fads or engage in destructive gang behavior. 4) The fourth reason is that "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con again argues that any form of social pressure constitutes bullying. That is not responsive to the argument that some targets of social pressure are less destructive than others. 5) "It allows individuals to express themselves in fashion outside of school, which reinforces the distinct nature of the educational environment." This is a variant of the "judicial robes" argument, in which a distinct attire enforces behavior suited to the task. Examples were cited of the best schools overseas, in Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong, where having uniforms helps maintain a focus on education that leads to better performance. In the US, the Catholic schools, which mostly have uniforms, succeed better than public schools. Con argues that there are many differences besides uniforms that lead to better performance. Its true that there are many differences, but they all relate to discipline and focus. I grant that just having uniforms will not solve all problems. However it is step in the right direction, and we know it is in the right direction because it moves towards the constellation of attributes associated with focus and discipline. Before-and-after studies in the Long Beach and Baltimore schools show that uniforms achieve positive effects. Con cites Brunsma and Rockquemore study, which purports to show there is no effect. It is a classic case of a bogus study. Con did not reference the actual study, which is posted at http://sociology.missouri.edu... The key defects are that the study contained almost no public schools, and even more importantly, never considered data from the same school before and after the policies were implemented. They basically end up studying schools that already had high levels of discipline, and conclude that if all else is right, then uniforms make no difference. The authors made statistical corrections for the statistically biased sample, but they give almost no information on what they did in order to get the answer they sought. They admit, for example, that Catholic schools achieve better performance, but they apply corrections to the data so it doesn't correlate to uniforms. The authors claim to be surprised by their results, but go on to reveal clear bias. For example, they dismiss the solid before-and-after case of the Long Beach School system by saying that a $1 million study ($10/student) introduced unspecified "educational reforms" that produced the dramatic changes. If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the "reforms" would surely be adopted universally, which they were not. Beyond that, the authors would surely name the reforms if they were so compelling, but they did not. Moreover, absolutely no one in the school system attributed the improvements to anything but the uniform policy. The authors bias shows throughout their intemperate and unjustified conclusions. A statistics package in the hands of a social scientist remains a dangerous thing. They should wear tuxedos when they sit down at the computer; it would promote discipline. The authors made one valid point. They suggest that the parental involvement that precipitated a policy of requiring uniforms in Long Beach may have precipitated other improvements. I suggest that parents and educators showing that they cared about educational performance had a positive effect upon performance. That's a good result and a good reason for parents and educators showing they care by adopting a uniforms policy else where. Late in the debate, Con argued that cost was a reason for not adopting a uniform requirement. In fact, one of the main reasons that Baltimore parents wanted to have school uniforms was to reduce clothing costs. Chasing fashion fads and buying many different stylish outfits is far more expensive than just a few uniforms. However, while costs are lower for middle and upper income families, there is a potential hardship for poor families. It is well worth it for the school system to provide uniforms to such families. The uniforms are guaranteed to be used, so poor kids get better clothing and costs are lowered overall. Adopting school uniforms will not solve all the problems of education. Before-and-after studies show significant improvements in performance, and virtually all of the top schools systems in the US and abroad have uniform policies as part of an overall program that focuses student

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.

I'm going to just address your points one by one for my last statement. First off, you can't just put forth a new definition in the last round to make my argument look bad. If you wanted to set the terms you should have done so in round one. But since you didn't, I posted the definitions. And it also seems peculiar why you waited to submit it now, instead of in an earlier round or in the comments. You didn't have a problem with my definitions earlier, why now? I'm curious as to what you mean by "vague" when talking about the 2 laws. They're very straightforward. Also interesting to use the doctor as an example. In order to be a doctor you have to sign a contract with the hospital and I believe you also have to work under certain rules of a doctor. If you sign the contract an follow the rules, you are agreeing to do something. I'm sure somewhere in the contract it says that their patients lives are their responsibility. If the doctor screws up, but does everything he/she can to save the patient, then they have not broken the law, because they did everything they agreed to do. Accidents are a part of nature and cannot be predicted so they should not be used as a basis to sue. And why would a court be necessary? If it were included in the doctor's contract to report any mishaps in the O. R, the other doctor's would let the boss know. When the other doctors in the room say that he did everything he could to save the patient, then he's fine. Also, as you try to refute my point about the 3 branches of government, you actually affirm my argument. What you stated is a government going through a judicial process. Once again, it is not stopping or preventing the crime, just laying out a punishment. That statement all depends on how high the leadership goes. Naturally, a corp would be laid out like a police department because it would be most familiar to everybody. City by city, no more, no less. That way, one "precinct" cannot gain control over the other. Once again, you say the laws are vague, but they're not. They're very straightforward. And you say they can interpret and enforce as they please but provide no evidence as to back up that claim. Police officer's don't interpret the law as they please. They follow what is written. And saying a check is needed for the corp is like saying a check for the police is needed. Which it isn't. I would also like to point out that my opponent's opinion about corruption in the corp isn't backed up with a source, and also, my idea of the corp has never been tried so we don't know now do we? Also, his theory about Dan, Joe and Bob and then translating it to countries, doesn't really work or make sense considering government framing isn't the easiest or practical of crimes to commit. You also claim that anarchy leads to oppressive government, which is true in the cases provided, but my theory hasn't been tried yet so you really can't say it won't work. My opponent's last statement also doesn't make sense, I'm not quite sure how to refute your points and defend my own without making new arguments. And you didn't outline those conditions in round one. In closing: I believe that no government is more desirable than an oppressive one because under the two laws it promises freedom and privacy, economically, socially and personally. It's attitude of forcing opinions down the throats of it's citizens is unjust and doesn't warrant a desirable society. Look at Fascist Germany and the USSR. A country that lives under the two laws will not act in a manner that warrants hostile retaliation and will not discriminate against peoples regardless of ethnic background or religion. My thanks to Jdoe for this debate.


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

Police Misconduct
Enjoy the discussion! Law enforcement officers resorting to excessive force to handle criminal activities, as well as non-criminal incidents, is not the expected behavior from those tasked with the duty to "Protect and Serve." Race and ethnicity significantly influence decisions.1. ) African Americans experience police assaults or fatalities at a higher rate than any other racial group. In fact, as stated in Justice on Trial (2000), 70% of traffic stops involved black drivers, yet only 17% of traffic offenses were committed by blacks. Discrimination based on race is not a demonstration of justice! Even alleged criminals are entitled to Constitutional protections.1. ) The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a fair trial to determine their guilt. If police officers assume the role of judges and execute punishment on their own, this right is stripped from the accused. Aggression provokes aggression.1. ) The use of excessive force by police leads to a lack of trust and a tendency towards rebellion. These sentiments can drive even innocent individuals to act out.

This document maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original while preserving the relationship to the question about whether body cameras should be mandatory for police. The content discusses issues of police brutality, racial bias, violation of rights, and the consequences of excessive force, which are all relevant to the debate over body cameras as a means to increase police accountability and transparency.

No? You do realize your arguing in favor of the law, right?

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.

Con argues that "the government cannot force private schools to wear uniforms." Actually, the government can pass a law to require it if they chose. However, the operative notion for this debate is "should." the question here is only whether or not it is a good idea. I would leave it up to local school boards to accept the idea. However, if con thinks that implementation is a fundamental barrier, then we can amend the Constitution to allow the mandate. 1) I too would not have liked to have been forced to wear a uniform in high school, and I agree that many students would not like it. However, many students do not like to be forced to attend school at all, or to learn math or science or reading, or to do homework. Nonetheless, all those things are imposed for the sake of education. Con argues "helping each other to succeed, which is fine on a team but school is about individualism." Among the things that students can do to help each other succeed in education are: provide upper class mentoring of students in lower grades, minimize the social pressure to goof off rather than study, value the debate team along with the basketball team (well, maybe that is a bit much to ask for, but you get the idea), provide peer encouragement to "do your best", and provide a respectful participatory class environment. Con offers no evidence that discipline is unimportant for general education, or that creativity is suppressed in general by having uniforms. Maturity is often defined as "accepting postponement of the gratification of wants." That means learning to accept discipline and to impose self-discipline. Therefore, these are valid educational goals. Now, I agree the discipline thing can be overdone, but I cannot see any argument that American schools are now over-disciplined. We should move in that direction. 2) Con argues "surely does not help students focus as they will only find other ways to bully or tease one another." Yes, students can find other ways to misbehave, but that doesn't mean uniforms won't help. Having laws against bank robbery does not prevent bank robbery, but the laws help. I have no problem with students changing out of uniforms when they are not in class, in fact I think that helps reinforce the concept that there is a focused "education mode" and a "non-education" mode. Compare it to judges wearing robes. It helps the judge maintain a judicial attitude, and it helps participants afford respect to the judge in his judicial role. If the judge had on a comfy jogging suit and sneakers in the courtroom, we would rightly be concerned that he was not focused on justice. It would be counterproductive if judges wore their robes all the time; similarly, uniforms should be tied to the learning environment. 3) Con argues, "Who says the boys and girls must keep their uniforms in fashionable or even clean shape?" Actually, Con previously argued social pressure would do so, "it encourages others to mock those who do not have their uniforms as perfect as perhaps their own little group..." That would be a significant improvement over competition through expensive fashion fads. The larger point, however, is that the best a school can do is teach; it cannot guarantee that each person will learn. The argument for teaching is that many will learn, even though some do not. 4) I argued, "It encourages students to evaluate people by their behavior and personality rather than by their manner of dress." Con argued again that students may find other ways to misbehave. Again, that is not grounds for failing to do the best job of teaching possible. 5) con gave no reasons of evidence to support his contention that "Students will be less likely to want to learn in a strict environment." He discounted the Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong examples to the contrary on the grounds that there were many other differences in the school systems other than uniforms. I granted those many differences at the outset, however, the common theme in all of the differences is that there is more strict environment, not a less strict environment. I have not claimed that uniforms were the only factor or that adopting uniforms would perform miracles. The contention is solely that they move in the direction of having more focused educational environment, and that would improve academic achievement. the notion that students are less likely to want to learn in a focused environment is clear contradicted by the evidence. 6) Con previously argued that students would immediately change out their uniforms the minute school ended. If there is a problem, that's a good solution. Note that there is larger problem with students wearing gang colors or clothing styles that provoke violence. there are cases of students being attacked because they unknowingly wore gang colors. Uniforms solve that problem. 7) There is no reason why uniforms need be uncomfortable. I allowed that parents and administrators should adapt to local circumstances. Fairbanks will be different from Key West. 8) Teachers should do nothing to enforce uniform requirements. That is a job for the school administration. Increased discipline helps teachers. Classes in Japan and elsewhere are much larger than in the US, yet they deliver better education. This is only possible because there are fewer behavior problems. 9) Con asks for additional evidence, while providing no counter-evidence of his own. The largest and most prominent example of a school uniform policy experiment in the United States is that of the Long Beach Unified School District, the third largest school district in California having 97,000 students in 90 public school programs, with 46 different languages spoken by local students: "The quantitative outcomes of the policy have been remarkable. Crime report summaries are now available for the five-year post-uniform policy period and reflect that school crime overall has dropped approximately 86%, even though K-8 student enrollment increased 14%. The five categories of school crime where comparisons can be made between 1993 levels and 1999 levels are as follows: (a) sex offenses down 93% (from 57 to 4 offenses); (b) robbery/extortion down 85% (from 34 to 5 cases); (c) selling or using chemical substances down 48% (from 71 to 37 cases); (d) weapons or look-a-likes down 75% (from 145 to 36 cases); and (e) dangerous devices down 96% (from 46 to 2 cases; LBUSD, 1999). ... Analysis of attendance figures has also provided interesting outcomes for the uniform initiative. In the fourth year that school uniforms have been required in K-8 grades, the percent of actual attendance reached almost 95%, noted as the highest point in the 18 years that the district has maintained statistics. Middle schools also registered comparable improvements in student attendance reaching almost 95% (LBUSD, 2002)." http://findarticles.com... The city of Baltimore provides another major experiment with positive results: "Eddie Scott, principal at Meade Middle on Fort Meade, tells the Baltimore Sun's writer, Anica Butler, "There's research that shows a correlation between appropriate dress and academic performance." Students will not be distracted with who is wearing what brand of jeans, shoes or shirts. Students can focus on learning which is why they are there." http://educationalissues.suite101.com... In addition to the experience of foreign countries, there are also the evidence of private and and parochial schools that generally require uniforms and achieve better performance. The policies work most effectively when parents support them, as in Long Beach and Baltimore, and there are examples when other factors overwhelm the effect of having uniforms. Requiring uniforms is a step in the right direction.

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for setting up this debate. I might note, that is the Pro side and the instigator, the BoP lies within my opponent to prove why this law should be passed. I would, however, like to note a few things right off the bat, particularly the falsities and fallacies that my opponent has placed within his argument.He begins by drawing a red herring to the use of racism in the past as to why it should be outlawed in modern times, using an appeal to emotion when noting slavery and segregation that was quite commonplace in America's past. He then notes the very recent Ferguson incident as a reason for the riots without giving the full story on the matter, including the fact that no matter how sloppy the policework was when Wilson first confronted Brown, the fact remains that the most current forensic data proves Brown did attack first, and later charged at Wilson, leading to the cop shooting him and remaining perfectly within the boundaries of his rights as a law enforcer.[1][2] But I digress, as that is a completely separate debate.I would, however, also like to point out the fact that my opponent's argument for making such a law is not sound in the slightest. This is what he believes:1) If X (in this case racism) causes emotional harm or starts fights, then it should be illegal.2) X causes emotional harm and starts fights.∴ X should be illegalThis is not a valid argument in he slightest as the conclusion does not follow through the given premises. If the argument does not follow in all instances of X, then my opponent's argument is not valid. Let us replace X with something like religion. Time and time again in history, a person's religion might be considered "rude, insensitive and hurtful" (Take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church for proof of this) but in no way was it ever made illegal in the USA. The Crusades, modern terrorism, and the Salem Witch hunts have all been been directly caused by religious belief, and yet in America, we have the freedom to practice our religion which, like the Freedom of Speech or Expression (which my opponent is directly attacking with his arguments), is protected by the 1st Amendment in the Constitution.[3] In fact, my opponent's proposed law would also be an attack on the 14th Amendment, as the only people who could possibly be punished by this law are those of Caucasian decent![4] The level of hypocrisy within the argument is staggering; to fight racism by imposing a law on a certain race of people (Caucasians) shows that while my opponent's argument may be well intentioned, it is at the moment, baseless. While there are exceptions to this such as in the case of hate speech or 'fighting words' which are meant as direct attacks and intended to provoke harm, opinions and beliefs (and the expression thereof) are not to be abridged in any way, There are laws in place protecting the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and even the American Nazi Party to protect their right to express their beliefs. These next few photographs are of protests that some may call offensive, but entirely legal. Now, I personally find myself in disagreement with the views expressed by the people in the above photographs. American ethics, however, allow them to assemble as they please. No matter how we may feel about their opinions, the fact of the matter is that they are all entitled to have them. To put things simply, from my opponent's argument, an abridgement of free speech here would mean that the abridgement of free speech in many other mediums, including but not limited to artwork or movements such as feminism.Tropes Versus Women in Video Games is an example that comes to mind. The opinions expressed by Anita Sarkeesian, the creator of the aforementioned video series caused quite an uproar which included many feelings being hurt (mostly men), and the thoughts the Anita was being "rude, insensitive and hurtful" to the gaming culture and those within it. Fights were started online due to these videos which resulted in threats of rape, murder, and death, and later on threats of a school shooting.[5] Though it is clear that a deep rooted misogyny was the cause of these threats, it was the initial expression of feminist beliefs that started this uproar. Should we then assume by my opponent's argument, that expression of feminism should be outlawed? Mein Kampf, To Kill a Mockingbird, Uncle Tom's Cabin and many other books have been banned by certain schools due to ideological disputes and fights about their content, so perhaps by my opponent's reasoning, we should also ban books which certain people may find offensive. Or perhaps movies, music, or video games as well that one may find offensive for one reason or another?It may seem like I am jumping off the slippery slope here, and I will admit that the likelihood of the censorship of any of the things I had previously listed will likely never come to pass, at least, not in America. What I am trying to show, however, is that given my opponent's reasoning for such a law, there is no way that his premises follow. Let me remind you that the BoP is placed on Pro to show why such a law should indeed be put into effect. Currently, I can see no sound argument made as to why we should. Not only would such a bill need to contradict 2 Constitutional Amendments thus being contrary to American ethics, but it would also violate the natural right of liberty (as agreed upon by Locke, Jefferson, the framers of the Constitution, and those who follow their teachings) which all human beings are entitled to. To place a law on solely Caucasians is again, simply morally bankrupt.I thank you for reading and look forward to my opponent's next argument.~~~~~Sources:[1] http://www.pbs.org...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Well most people already do have guns and there is no stopping it. If the law but a band on all guns except for law enforcers, then the crime rate may go up and i don't think the hunters and others would be happy about giving up there guns. That may lead to a riot ,also there will always be suicide by gun, or murder, or shootings in schools because they will never get rid of all guns that are held by the public.

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.

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.

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!

I would first like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide any constitutional amendment only provided a rationale for one that is, frankly, deeply flawed. If my opponent would like to provide one I would gladly address it. My opponent proposes a gun registry. this would not, however, be a constitutional amendment or addendum. you also are already required in most states (if not all) to have a firearm license. Even if it already wasn't required, it still wouldn't be a constitutional amendment. My opponent brings us gang members that carry guns for "cool points" I would ask my opponent to clarify exactly how he would suggest we determine who is trying to get "cool points" and who wants a firearm for more legitimate purposes. My opponent argues that we should not have people carrying guns because it can draw suspicion. This is not a reason to amend the constitution. We should not have the government remove our right to self preservation because people are suspicious of people who carry guns (which I don't believe most people even are.) To conclude, my opponents arguments are deeply and fundamentally flawed, and he should provide a proposed amendment so he can fulfill his BOP that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

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.


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

Resolved: The use of body cameras by police officers should be mandatory.

Greetings once more, I am Forever 23, and I will argue in favor of the necessity of body cameras for law enforcement personnel. Let me begin by addressing my opponent's refutations (in the absence of any new points or arguments in round 3), restating my claims, and summarizing my proposal.

Firstly, my opponent has been selectively addressing my arguments, failing to consider them as a whole. He argues that the implementation of body cameras is based solely on the government's perspective. However, it is important to note that the government's stance aligns with the public's opinion. The general populace agrees with the government on moral values, such as the immorality of murder, theft, and the need for punishment for such crimes.

Subjectivity is acknowledged by both the proposition and opposition teams. However, in our society, certain moral values are accepted by the majority and guide our actions. If these values were not widely accepted, they would be different. The concept of fairness remains in place as long as the majority endorses it. The public is not being forced to accept a particular definition of fairness; they are embracing and praising the current moral standards.

The opponent's claim that body cameras would impose one group's subjective idea of fairness on others is flawed. It is not a single group, but rather a large portion of the population that supports body cameras. This widespread support is based on the current definition of fairness, making the implementation of body cameras essential for the US government, a government that is founded on values created by the people, not imposed by the government.

The opponent also emphasizes the subjectivity of opinions and attacks the argument that genocide is detrimental to the public by citing historical examples, such as Hitler's belief in its benefits. However, the immorality of murder is not subjective. If you ask a random person on the street why murder is wrong, the most common response would be, "Just because it is wrong." The majority of the public holds the view that both genocide and murder are wrong, making this perspective applicable.

Similarly, the subjective opinion that police officers should wear body cameras is widely held by the majority, making it applicable and necessitating its implementation. Evidence has been presented to support the claim that body cameras lead to reduced discrimination and excessive force by police officers, which in turn ensures safety for the public. The desire for safety is a universal aspiration, making this argument applicable to the general public.

In summary, my opponent has failed

Experiencing freedom is not being watched almost 24/7. There is something called privacy. "Cameras merely observe," no cameras watch. And that would be counted as stalking. Yes; I agree that it will help crime rates, but it makes people more creative. They are going to commit crimes where cameras aren't. And what happens if power goes out, or the cameras break?

Hello, I plan to show that not only is mandatory pro bono work for lawyers constitutional, but also that it helps lawyers grow in their profession, (much has apprenticeships in other professions have done so for all time) and helps the community at large. Equal representation does not truly exist in our justice system because of the great expense a competent defense requires. Many lawyers share the belief that pro bono work is a good thing, as evidenced by the "Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge" launched in 1993, now operating out of the Pro Bono Institute at Georgetown, that challenges law firms to commit 3-5% of the firms billable hours to pro bono causes. The American bar proposed mandatory 40 hours a year pro bono work to service the poor and middle class who couldn't afford legal expense in 1977. It met so much opposition that membership to the ABA only included that "Lawyers should aspire to render ... pro bono publico services." Now places like Mississippi are once again are proposing mandatory amounts (20 hours). Requiring pro bono work is similar in other professions to Doctors having to do internships, or on the job experience training cosmetologist do, cutting hair for free. Since lawyers would be required to do free work only as a tiny part of their lucrative profession, it is not only moral but also constitutional. Lubet and Stewart from The University of Pennsylvania Law Review note that "public-assets pro bono programs clearly have the constitutionally permissible effect of requiring "all of the lawyers who derive benefit from the unique status of being among those admitted to practice before the courts [to] be called upon to pay a fair share of the cost of the professional involvement in this effort."" It is improper to consider those that cannot afford considerably expensive legal services as "indigent" since one does not have to be homeless to not be able to afford these services. It should be expected of law firms to give back to the community, and since legal services are considered monopolistic in this country (as only individuals licensed by the ABA may do so) it doe not detract from a capitalistic society, and little actual money would be lost from the firm or individual lawyers.

In my opinion, LAWS are an effective way of stopping terrorism or other crimes in as short a time possible after they start or before they have even started. If a countrywide manhunt for a serial killer was happening and one of these weapons systems saw them, they would be able to either take them out or alert the authorities. However, there should also be tight controls on their deployment and a destruction switch/button should be created for each one of them. if there was a glitch in the software and it saw everyone as a threat, then there would be huge problems trying to shut it down or destroy it if there wasn't. However, if someone ripped out a gun/bomb in the middle of a crowded area, then the LAWS could neutralise the threat and save lives. on the other hand, there should be restrictions on their export/import to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands and strict international laws to prevent governments from using them against the masses.

Surely we can agree that there are cars on the road today that don't have insurance, updated registration, or even registered at all. These cars are all around us and we don't even notice. Why? Because they aren't doing anything wrong. How ofter do you as a driver stare at the tags of the vehicle in front of you? I don't think I've ever notices the tags even when I'm reading a vanity plate. Although people drive illegally, not so much with speeding but as in unregistered, it's very easy for the police to spot. But then again a car is easy to spot. You can't hide a car in your pocket or under your coat. If you drive with expired tags or an incorrect license plate the police will find out. How can this work for guns? You said that private individuals could take their firearm to some location, assumably a gun store, where a background check can be performed. But again, how would you be able to enforce such a law? And how can you catch those that don't abide? Unlike a car a firearm can be concealed in public. Like I said earlier I don't believe in the 90% claim at all and I'm not alone. Gun Owners of America, another gun rights group, polled their own members after the so called 90% claim was made. Their results showed less than 10% supported Universal Background Checks. http://gunowners.org... <--- Do I take this result as absolute? No I don't and for the same reasons I stated earlier. It's impossible to confirm this is what the nation wants. Without a gun you cannot commit a gun crime. Truer words were never spoken. But what's the solution other than the Universal Background Check (UBC from now on) ? Like I said I cannot be enforced because people will do what they want to do. We can't compare UBC to the gun policies of the UK or Australia because they don't have one. They just have a total ban. Since the UBC won't prevent people from selling guns to each other, how do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? If you want to compare the process for driving a vehicle to owning a firearm ok; but as stated above, how can it be enforced. Your ideas aren't uncommon, but no one can say how it can be enforced. The Bill of Rights was written not to grant rights, but to prevent the government from taking those rights. Since the 2nd Amendment is indeed to take up arms against DC, why would we give any power over that to DC? Now of course you could argue that DC is no more of a threat to the People than Canada is, but does that really change the position of the 2nd Amendment? It is there to prevent the government from even thinking about becoming tyrannical. When you start to erode some of that power, you strengthen the chances of tyranny. For your next rebuttal I would really like you to explain how the UBC would be enforced.

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...

My opponent states that my opening argument infers that all public humiliation is bodily harm. My argument doesn't mention this at all, so this attack is a matter of opinion and it falls. He also states that public humiliation that does not inflict bodily harm is against the law. However, I clearly stated that this falls under cruel and unusual punishment.' My opponent failed to address this so therefore it is dropped. The affirmative points out that the tabloid and the news outlets publicly humiliate people every day. This point is irreverent and invalid because they person being humiliated has not necessarily done anything wrong. The affirmative also gives evidence for his case: -Jail cells: This article is irrelevant to the resolution because it has absolutely nothing to do with public humiliation. Even if it were, "...in a remote area of Arizona." doesn't sound very public to me. -Texas judge: This point is invalid because it is a matter of opinion of one judge. It even says so right in the title: "...Several jurists think public humiliation...is a more effective punishment." Highlight the word THINK. -Criminal fees: My opponent has not answered my argument here; which is "can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process?" The answer is that we simply cannot compare these two. As for his evidence, it shows how a criminal must pay a fine in addition to jail time. A quote from the article: "The imposition of mandatory surcharges, like mandatory sentencing, erodes judicial independence by tying the judges' hands even when they think that justice requires a different result." This sure sounds like a contradiction to me. On top of that, let's be realistic: Can you borrow money from a firm? Yes, you can. There are special firms out there for criminals. Well, it appears that my opponent has not responded to my other attacks: "My opponent gives 'his opinion' on how our nations legal system ought to work, but provides no facts or evidence (unless you you count your last sentence as evidence, well then, yes I would like to see an example other than what is in my evidence). Due to lack of support or statistical data, this point falls as well. 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. The affirmative also points out that public humiliation leaves a lasting impression on them. Answer me this: if you are permanently scarred by being publicly humiliated. are you more likely to hate the government or submit wholly to it?" You should vote negative because I have successfully proved how the resolution is best negated, I answered all attacks on my case, and I responded to all my opponent's points. Thanks for reading my arguments and thank you to my opponent. *NOTE I also had 100% correct grammar and spelling. My true age revealed: I am 15 years old!!!

You say that people's privacy will be invaded but those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. If those who do not have a criminal background (whether serious or not) or are planning on doing something in the future then they have no reason to be worried. The DNA profile will also only be viewed by a government worker and won't even be viewed if the person's own health, safety, or criminal background comes into question. Their privacy can very easily be maintained by through high-end security and as long as they have nothing to hide then they have no reason to worry.

This debate should be impossible to accept, if you accept without my permission then you shall forfeit the debate. If you wish to accept then please leave a comment.This debate's resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Con must present their case in R1, and must waive in the final round11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsThe United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://www.dictionary.com...)Mandatory- permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified (http://www.dictionary.com...)Vaccine-any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing aninnocuous form of the diseaseagent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. (http://www.dictionary.com...)

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.

Your argument is completely off topic and irrelevant. The debate topic was whether it SHOULD be required not if it could be required. And I do believe there are many government imposed things on state regulations for schools. The government comes up with what they want in all schools ( common core, NCLB, "healthier" lunches, etc.) and then they offer the state money. Yeah, some states refuse the money so that they can dictate what is to be taught in their schools, but most are desperate for the money and take it at any cost. So your argument had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand but hopefully next round you can come up with something relative to the topic.