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

Resolved: Body cameras should be mandatory for all police officers.

* This is not a typical debate on police matters. * Throughout history, humanity has sought safety and justice, yet unsolved crimes and flawed detective work have plagued us. The solution, however, is within reach. By implementing body cameras for police officers, we can ensure public safety and solve more crimes. I am Forever 23, and I will argue in favor of the proposition that police officers should be required to wear body cameras. I will provide definitions and present my arguments.

Body cameras: These are high-quality, durable cameras worn by police officers on their uniforms. They provide objective footage of police interactions and incidents.

1. Reducing racial bias in policing: Racial bias in the police force is a significant issue, as the justice system often fails to treat people equally based on race. Body cameras can provide an objective view of situations, ensuring that the truth is recorded and reducing the potential for racial bias. As Maxine Waters, Derrick Bell, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have noted, the justice system disproportionately affects people of color. Objective footage from body cameras can help address this issue by providing a clear, unbiased record of events.
2. Decreasing police use of force: The presence of body cameras can create self-awareness in police officers during interactions, leading to a reduction in the use of force. The Rialto experiment demonstrated that use-of-force incidents dropped by 59% and complaints against officers decreased by 87% when body cameras were worn. This increased awareness can result in a stronger, more efficient police force and improve public trust in law enforcement.
3. Public support for body cameras: The majority of Americans, including police officers and civilians, support the use of body cameras. According to a poll, 56% of voters believe body cameras would benefit the police force, while 13% believe they would protect citizens' rights. Only 25% of respondents were concerned about privacy, and 6% believed officers should have a choice. The Fort Worth Police Department's community liaison, Tracey Knight, reported that more officers are requesting body cameras, and some have even purchased their own. With substantial support, the implementation of body cameras can strengthen public safety and democracy.

In conclusion, the proposition team's plan is to make it mandatory for police officers to wear body cameras. This will not only address issues of racial bias and excessive force but also improve public trust in law enforcement and ensure a safer society for all.

Your arguments against the entire privatization of police forces is plainly ridiculous, with all due respect. I do not see how a high school diploma is anyhow relevant. I have a high school diploma but there are countless of better-suited individuals that have dropped out of high school that could become security providers. A certificate showing that you know how to Spark Note a book and do your homework 15 minutes before class has nothing to do with one's capacity to protect people. Maybe police officers are subjected to psychological tests now and then, so what? Police brutality is a daily thing, even in the United States, where pregnant women can be tased and old men beaten to death with little or no consequence on guilty officers. On the other hand, private security officers are automatically taught to be more respectful, more helpful, more trustworthy, and much nicer to people in general. Why? Because of the same profit-seeking interest that you oppose. Mall and shop owners have an interest in bringing in more clients, which means they have to provide a safe and relaxing environment. Private road and land owners could offer the exact same protection with the same level of effectiveness and efficiency. After all, where do most crimes happen? In the privately-secured stores or in public streets? In the streets, and I doubt this is just a coincidence. Now it is true that many opponents of the abolition of the State like to dubb the ensuing system as "anarcho-feudal". But this does not mean they are right. Clearly, you are misconceiving the very concept of feudalism. Feudalism, as even your Wikipedia article points out, was a "decentralized dictatorship" with national laws and rules to be applied on the local scale by lords, counts, dukes, princes, etc. In a sense, feudalism is the ultimate result of pure socialism, which seeks for a decentralized socialist state. But it is not the representation of stateless society. In a feudal society, one lives on a lord's land and has no right to leave this land to change masters. Such peasants that would dare to leave their homes would be pursued and severely punished in medieval France. In a free society, people would either own the land they live on or rent it from an actual owner. Obviously, since you would have the choice to pick which owner you'd like to rent your land from, most people will look for someone who does not try to control every aspect of their lives. I mean if you had the choice, would you look for a rent money-seeking owner or a freak that forcefully takes away 3/4's of everything you earn every day? In a feudal society, the central state makes rules about the ownership of land. In France, for instance, lords would be prohibited from passing their land onto females unless authorized by the King. In Great Britain, the sale of feudal land was authorized only if made to the King or if no family member remained alive. In a free society, such restrictions would not exist, allowing a wider marketplace of land to be established with competitive owners deciding to improve their properties and attract clients as if they were entrepreneurs. The lack of a State will not somehow awaken a dark aspect of humankind. Most likely, since the economic status of the stateless society would be capitalistic, deeper entrepreneurial and social cooperation will lead to a more peaceful environment. But I am not trying to give you one of those soft anarcho-communist arguments that mankind will be different so I'll rather use a realistic argument for my rebuttal. In a private country, the goal of the military would be to do its initial intent: protect people. Condominums will keep their current private protection apparatus, while oil fields could hire private militias to defend themselves. Now, remember that everything has a cost. People cannot buy everything for the very reason that everything is more or less scarce and price fixing is applied accordingly to the scarcity of the good. A private security or private militia group will be costly to take care of if it carries the duties of a defending army on a smaller-scale. So what do you think will happen if anyone dares to attack a neighboring oil field? Costs will be astonishing as one will have to pay for the extra weapons, the medical assistance, the food and clothing of the soldiers or fighters, etc. Those that have such adventurous minds as to conquer a neighboring field might as well see the military insurance premiums go up in a sharp way to cover the possible deaths that might ensue from an attack. The price incentive for not fighting will simply be too large for a feudal-like society to arise. I'll remind you that feudal armies were afforded by the forceful taxation of lords and churches. In the absence of this forceful taxation, who exactly will be able to afford a standing army? This reminds me of one libertarian scholar, Ludwig Von Mises, who said that in today's world, virtually nobody could be able to afford the construction of the Versailles Palce and that it took the forceful hand of government taxation to build it. Now, let us look at your case for a government-provided law. The first argument against my case is more of an argument against private courts that the concept of private law itself. You ask, "What if the people involved in the litigation cannot afford the judge"? To begin with, why would the people in a legal conflict want to hire a judge they can't afford? One cannot pretend all judges will be expensive. It is like claiming that without the government, all shoes, all clothing, or all housing would be too expensive for the poor to afford them. This is not true. The market adjusts itself to all the demands of society. Unreachable, over expensive judges would be a luxury service, not a general one. Now, is it fair or just to allow judges to rule without an universal standard? Not considering the fact that this system is the one already in use in the United States without problems, I would like to ask you a similar question. Is it fair to allow a few central planners, union bureaucrats, and powerful technocrats to decide what competent and educated judges should do? Central planning never works, so don't expect litigation to be any different. Another case against private litigation resolution you pointed out is corruption. You agreed that corruption already exists. The difference is that in today's monopolized system, the customer (you or I) have no choice. We have to remain with the same government judges all the time. If private companies were in charge of conflict resolution, wouldn't you choose the least corrupted company? You know, thanks to the transparency of the free market, when a corporation is corrupted or breaks a contract, so the rational goes that if a company dares to adventure itself into contract-breaking, people will leave it and it will start a long road toward decline or reform. In short, private companies would be less corrupted than the government monopoly of courts. When it comes to the polycentric theory of law of David Friedman, I can tell that you had the heaviest problems with this system (while it is probably my favorite one). You, to a weak extent, correctly pointed out that bad laws might lead to chaos and violence. If one allows rape on his land, those that would visit this land would soon be raped. Violence right there. But to begin with, why would you even consider going somewhere where rape is allowed. That would just plain stupid, or daring. And this would be a very isolated case. I don't see the domino theory that you pointed out ("bad for the whole country") even possible. Let's assume you have two neighbors: one with a good yard and one with a ugly one. Would you be more influenced by the first or the second one? So I think the domino theory would go the other way around. Space limits me. Your turn

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

As it says in our United States Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Yes, that's right, our Constitution clearly states that it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and it "shall not be infringed." Now, I know, you are probably going to come back at me with the argument of the first two clauses stating that only if it is "necessary to the security of a free state," should we be able to "keep and bear arms." However, in this fragile world we live in today, one must be protective of themselves and the ones they love. I shall go ahead and quote one of our forefathers of America, Thomas Jefferson, the author of our own Declaration of Independence said when writing to his teenage nephew, "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." I shall continue further with a quote from another of our forefathers, George Washington, officer in the French and Indian War, general in our own American Revolution and the First President of this United States of America. As he stated, "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." Here's a quote from the ever peaceful Mahatma Ghandi as he said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." When our forefathers were writing these historical documents, they kept in mind that the future governments would clearly make vital mistakes. There is proof, for George Washington once stated, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." When these times would and are to come about, it is our job as American citizens to not become extremists, but to have power and leverage against a strong government; if this authority was not present, our federal government would be able to stomp all over us. Abraham Lincoln put it best when he said, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." If there was ever to be a dictatorship put into the United States of America (which hopefully will never come about), people could take up arms against this Un-Constitutional installation easily and efficiently. Our Minutemen who first showed their bravery on the battlefield of Lexington in 1775 were ordinary farmers who bore arms. Our victory in the American Revolution was partially due to the fact that we had guns present at the time and we were sick and tired of Great Britain's ways. Therefore, we started an uprising and, deny it all you want, it is fact that those brave gun-bearers are the reason we have our freedoms today. I am ever thankful for you posting this debate on this wonderful website I am new to. This is actually my first debate! I am eager to hearing beach from you within the next three days. What a controversial and great topic to start it all off! I hope we can stay civilized in debate and I hope to hear from you soon. Here are the sources from which I obtained information in these passages. "Quotes on Firearms Rights." Index of Quotes on Firearms Rights. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.catb.org...;. "Battles of Lexington and Concord." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.

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

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

My opponent seems to not have an argument right now, and since this is a 5-round debate, I will simply state some of my points as a list rather than making lengthy arguments. To be clear, I am arguing that Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation is bad [since I am CON]. Agencies should do one thing, and do it well. Not consolidating minimizes confusion. Not consolidating makes agencies simpler to manage. Not consolidating makes the agencies very modular. If one agency needs to increase in size, decrease in size, or disband, none of the other agencies are affected. Not consolidating makes pinpointing blame for mistakes much easier. Since this is 5 rounds, that's all I'll do for now.

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.

Pro has forfeited the second round so this should be taken into account during the voting period. In conclusion I would like to state that Pro used mainly examples of "should" rather than "can". When he did in fact use reasons on the "Can" points, they were not strong. For example he stated that, "the Elastic Clause in the Constitution has the power to overrule an amendment" when in fact there is no source for this. Also, the whole point of the amendments are to protect people's rights from tyrannical actions like certain laws that may be deemed "necessary" by certain political beings. Amendment 1 gives the american people the right to express themselves freely through their clothes, actions, and speech. We the american people should be able to wear who we want, be who we want, no questions asked PERIOD.

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my FF. I could not find the time to respond. My opponent agreed to FF his next round in order to allow me more time to respond. Conduct should go to Pro."I do not see how a high school diploma is anyhow relevant. I have a high school diploma but there are countless of better-suited individuals that have dropped out of high school that could become security providers."I was attempting to show the higher standards police officers are held to over security guards."A certificate showing that you know how to Spark Note a book and do your homework 15 minutes before class has nothing to do with one's capacity to protect people."A high school graduate obviously has a better work ethic, and a better attitude than a high-school dropout - things that would be preferable for a person to have that is responsible for protecting people. And if earning a diploma is as easy as using SparkNotes, then there wouldn't be 7000 high school kids dropping out every day (http://www.all4ed.org...)"Maybe police officers are subjected to psychological tests now and then, so what? Police brutality is a daily thing, even in the United States, where pregnant women can be tased and old men beaten to death with little or no consequence on guilty officers. "Unsubstantiated claim"On the other hand, private security officers are automatically taught to be more respectful, more helpful, more trustworthy, and much nicer to people in general" Unsubstantiated claim"Why? Because of the same profit-seeking interest that you oppose. Mall and shop owners have an interest in bringing in more clients, which means they have to provide a safe and relaxing environment."Protection should not rely on profit! Let's say a traveler was just wanting to pass through a piece of land. Would the owner require a payment for protection to be provided to this traveler? How much would this fee be? Well, I guess it would just be whatever the owner wanted it to be. And if the traveler refuses to pay, and then gets robbed or harmed in some way, what happens then? The so-called "police" will just stand there and watch?If all land becomes privately-owned by different owners, the only thing that would motivate them to provide any protection at all for the people on their land is PROFIT. And this would NOT be a good thing, because without any gain for the owners, the protection would cease to exist. "Private road and land owners could offer the exact same protection with the same level of effectiveness and efficiency."Maybe, but this "protection" would not exist across the board, it will only exist when driven by profit."After all, where do most crimes happen? In the privately-secured stores or in public streets? In the streets, and I doubt this is just a coincidence."Unsubstantiated claimMy opponent then goes on explaining how his scenario of a stateless society is different from feudalism. I would just like to say that I was not trying to draw a strict comparison between my opponent's scenario and feudalism. I only compared the two because the structure of the two seemed similar (with the privately owned land and all). Once you delve into feudalism, then yes, it is quite different from my opponent's idea. So, I will continue to refute my opponent's points he made about the stateless society. I will not attempt to argue that his scenario and feudalism are still the same, for that was not my original intention for the comparison."In a free society, people would either own the land they live on or rent it from an actual owner. Obviously, since you would have the choice to pick which owner you'd like to rent your land from, most people will look for someone who does not try to control every aspect of their lives. I mean if you had the choice, would you look for a rent money-seeking owner or a freak that forcefully takes away 3/4's of everything you earn every day?"Owners would have to keep their prices competitive with one another. But if prices keep rising and rising, what's going to stop the owners? how is that fair to the citizens?"In a free society, such restrictions would not exist, allowing a wider marketplace of land to be established with competitive owners deciding to improve their properties and attract clients as if they were entrepreneurs."Yes the land-owners would have COMPLETE control. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want. How is this good again?The next section of my opponent's argument is pointing out how a feudal-like society would not rise. I did not mean to say a feudal society would arise. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion by that."To begin with, why would the people in a legal conflict want to hire a judge they can't afford? The market adjusts itself to all the demands of society. Unreachable, over expensive judges would be a luxury service, not a general one."So..... there would have to be judges that offer their services for free? Because surely some people would not be able to afford a judge period, just as some people cannot afford a lawyer today. But now, the government will provide a lawyer for you. Who will provide the judge in your scenario, and why?"Now, is it fair or just to allow judges to rule without an universal standard? Not considering the fact that this system is the one already in use in the United States without problems, I would like to ask you a similar question. Is it fair to allow a few central planners, union bureaucrats, and powerful technocrats to decide what competent and educated judges should do? Central planning never works, so don't expect litigation to be any different."Ok judges wouldn't be a problem. I concede this point."Another case against private litigation resolution you pointed out is corruption. You agreed that corruption already exists. The difference is that in today's monopolized system, the customer (you or I) have no choice. We have to remain with the same government judges all the time."Not true. "Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Now, judges can be impeached because of this nation-wide law in the Constitution. I would also like to point out that if the whole nation would be privatized, nation-wide legislation like the Constitution would not exist. There would be a bunch of different sets of laws all over, and that would be it."If private companies were in charge of conflict resolution, wouldn't you choose the least corrupted company? In short, private companies would be less corrupted than the government monopoly of courts."How would you choose the least corrupted company, or let's say least corrupted land-owner? Would that involve one to move all of their belongings off of their property? Because what I'm getting from this is whoever's land you live on you must follow their rules. So if you end up on corrupt land, you have to move off of it. And if there's only a select few honest land-owners, everyone would flock to that land, and those land-owners surely wouldn't be able to provide land for everyone. So corruption would still exist, and since the corrupt companies are calling the shots for their employees, the corruption would not be removed.Polycentric Theory of LawIf one land allows all kinds of crime to happen, ALL criminals would most certainly flock there. That area would become an area just absolutely filled with crime. Once all the victims there are taken care of, the criminals would certainly spread to surrounding areas. So if one area allows crime to happen freely, its surrounding neighbors would certainly suffer. Criminals are like fleas - get a flea-infested animal near other animals, and the fleas just spread and multiply.Out of space. Back to Pro

argument, hard to enforce private background checks. still, it can be done, all one has to do is bring the gun to some place to ensure a background check. same way cars are transferred. to help pay for this enterprise, they can charge a nominal fee, just like with car sales. would it always be worth enforcing? maybe not, but that doesn't mean we dont have laws and enforce it some times. just like marijuana sales and how lax yet sometimes not they are about it. and on that point, should we just get rid of all drug laws just because people won't always follow them, no of course not. perhaps you might be against most drug laws for libertarian purposes, but the point remains that you can't just argue it won't make any difference when it would make some difference. it would all make a difference. i'm not really sure what you want me to say about the background check points. all you really said was that it's hard to belive so many people support it, and question the validity. but you seem to be familiar with it, and it's very well established. just type ninety percent background checks into google, and tons of reputable websites report it. 74% of NRA member support background checks, check that out while you're at it. it's not hard to believe about background checks, cause they don't really cause much of any hindrances aside from mere inconvenience. it might seem like it is controversial, but that's only because of the way the media reports stuff. they make people think there's division here there's not. they even make people who don't think for themselves adhere to whatever issue they're suppose to, like 'im republican so i must follow all republican gun talking points'. even ronald reagan was against assault rifles being legal and stuff like that.... just a show of what it was really like before media partisianship, and what 'common sense' used to be. and to a big extent still is. the washington post and yahoo news were top google hits. here's another. http://www.politifact.com... a total ban is not the only way to make some difference. i agree the political support isn't there for a total ban. but it's just common sense and statistical that if you don't have a gun when you'd commit a crime, the crime might not be committed. and that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun, thus not having a gun hwen a crime would be committed prevents the crime. i agree that guns are at least legally rights, and cars are treated differently, but that doesn't mean we can't treat them the same, all the legality aside. your point is more just good to note but doesn't change anything about the fundamental policies that we're trying to determine and talk about. plus if you wanted to argue driving is a right, you could. it's only legislatively created and not constitutional, but it's still debatealy very similar. and guns are similar to something that could be driven on the roads, because they can be used to kill people.... more so than most weopons. that's what they are designed for. and it's not just hunting, and it wouldnt matter if it was. handguns aren't primaril made for shooting a moose, for example. we're not trying to stop most people from having guns, just making it all more tranparent and preventing some from getting them as easy or at all. yes the second amendment is designed for protection against the government. but that doesn't prevent you from having a gun if we just have more checks, so you are still protected. it's still your right. and that was then that the concern was so real for guns, and this is now where it's not that huge of a concern.... which means we focus on the real world now reality of murders, instead of far fetched future concerns of government take over. maybe we shouldnt get rid of guns for this reason, but it doesn't mean we cant have more checks etc. so all you've basically said was 'yes but it was designed for protection against the government' and haven't really established how that changes anything.


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

Recording police interactions should not be prohibited by law.

Indeed, Volkov, thank you. 1. Re: With the general public's ability to record anytime, police officers will inevitably face biases. I have elaborated that police officers being held accountable is a positive thing. As outlined in the previous round, police officers have a challenging role, and mistakes are bound to happen; it's the nature of their job. However, due to their extensive authority, allowing the public to record their interactions with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of individuals who may be wrongfully abused, arrested, or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are significantly hindered, as in a court of law, their word versus an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost always upheld; Con did not present a counterargument. Without the ability to submit tangible evidence, a corrupt officer could continue to abuse their power and manipulate the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install "Nanny Cams" to ensure their child's safety while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect themselves (personally)? 2. Re: Criminals are increasingly using the internet to evade the police. If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording police officers has had severely detrimental results or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording an interaction with a police officer would in any way negatively affect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arresting you, arresting another, or interacting with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best, you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain

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

Hello, thanks for accepting. Before I start my argument, I would like to point out that in society, people already wear masks daily. You see many women cover their faces with make-up, they mask their face with foundation to hide blemishes and spots. They are to some degree wearing a mask to hide their ugliness, or, if you'd rather word it differently, they're wearing masks to appear more attractive. Why should ugly people wear masks? People now a days are growing increasingly concerned with how they look, it makes many people self-conscious. I aim to restore confidence back into people by making it socially acceptable to go out wearing a mask. If it were socially acceptable to wear masks then people with self-confidence issues would improve drastically. Because these self-conscious people will no longer be self-conscious, I believe they will function better in society and improve society as a whole. I would also make a second argument that it is unfair to have to walk down the street and get a fright by a real ugly f***er. Have you ever eaten at a restaurant and looked across the table, only to see a half human, half pig monsteriod face staring at you, and at that moment you feel sick inside and it ruins your meal? Because I aim to fix this issue as well. How will we determine who is ugly enough to have to wear a mask? Everyone will be required to sign up to a private government website and post an image of themselves online. Then, a large voluntary team will sift through the enormous amount of pictures and black list the most ugly. These ugly people will be required to purchase a mask from a local store, and be required to wear it outside of the house. Those that don't post on this website will be fined heavily. What sort of mask should uglies wear? We would begin with very basic masks and gradually, I believe the design will evolve. I think much like clothing, people will begin to use these masks fashionably. It will be up to companies to design and market masks. This, I believe will create hundreds of jobs and stimulate the economy. To begin the production of the initial, basic masks, we would have to liaise with companies to produce them. To sum up my opening argument. After society has accepted these uglies wearing mask, It is my hope that companies may design the masks to be attractive enough for regular people to want to wear. This way, ugly people will blend back seamlessly into society. If my opponent disagrees with my proposal, then I would like him to propose a better solution to the "ugly epidemic" and the self confidence epidemic. This source shows that self confidence is at an all time low. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... This source shows that the percentage of ugly people is quite high. It is objective of course. http://www.returnofkings.com......

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

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

No arguments will be presented by either side. The subsequent rounds will consist of opening arguments, counter arguments, and closing arguments. Most Police OfficersThe following kinds of officers are included"State police officers, sometimes called state troopers or highway patrol officers, arrest criminals and patrol highways to enforce motor vehicle laws and regulations. ""Uniformed police officers have general law enforcement duties, including maintaining regular patrols and responding to calls for service. Much of their time is spent responding to calls and doing paperwork. They may direct traffic at the scene of an accident, investigate a burglary, or give first aid to an accident victim. In large police departments, officers usually are assigned to a specific type of duty. Many police agencies are involved in community policing–a practice in which an officer builds relationships with the citizens of local neighborhoods and mobilizes the public to help fight crime. ""Specialized assignments Officers can specialize in a particular field, such as chemical and microscopic analysis, training and firearms instruction, or handwriting and fingerprint identification. Others work with special units, such as horseback, bicycle, motorcycle, or harbor patrol; canine corps. ""Detectives are plainclothes investigators who gather facts and collect evidence for criminal cases. Some are assigned to interagency task forces to combat specific types of crime. They conduct interviews, examine records, observe the activities of suspects, and participate in raids or arrests. Detectives and state and federal agents and inspectors usually specialize in investigating one type of violation, such as homicide or fraud. They are assigned cases on a rotating basis and work on them until an arrest and conviction is made or until the case is dropped. ""Fish and game wardens enforce fishing, hunting, and boating laws. They patrol hunting and fishing areas, conduct search and rescue operations, investigate complaints and accidents, and aid in prosecuting court cases. ". http://discoverpolicing.org...ExceptionsThe following kinds of officers are not included. Any Officer involved in a raid or planned felony arrest for the duration of the operation. i. e. SWAT forces, Detectives, DEA, etc. Special Jurisdiction Police agencies have special geographic jurisdictions and enforcement responsibilities. Public college and university police forces, public school district police, and agencies serving transportation systems and facilities are examples.

Those in the army/police forces should be the only ones to bare arms, thus this would GREATLY reduce shootings. Thus, there should be a strict procedure to ensure that illegal guns do not get in the country, this could be easily done by putting forward harsh fines/jail sentences for those caught importing or caught using illegal guns and also by checking parcels in customs (I can see the flaw in this one because it could reduce privacy). However, this also implies that hunting would have to be illegal which is quite controversial with a low of people. Moreover, this is not a bizarre idea, a lot of countries have strict gun laws. For example, the UK had a school shooting in the 1990s, only one, because after that, they made it illegal for citizens to bare arms. Furthermore, my position is that strict gun laws will greatly reduce shootings, however I am aware that people still have means to get arms and therefore shootings will never get eliminated because we don't live in a perfect world.

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

First off - I hope you know my first "debate" was half joking. It's not stupid. I just wanted to be silly for my first debate with my brother! Anyway, I agree with you completely. I guess when I think of "racial profiling" I think of "driving while black." The a--hole cop who has nothing better to do than pull young black men over on the side of the NJ turnpike for kicks. I think random checks at airports is stupid. But I believe if law enforcement is going to do their job they need to take MORE than race into account and just can't use that as the one reason to question someone. How many innocent Americans of middle eastern descent were detained after 911 without a trial just because they had the same name as a terrorist or knew someone with a similar name etc. There has to be some kind of review process in case a complaint comes forward against law enforcement that we can determine "yes it was normal law enforcement profiling to include race as a factor" or "no this guy was on a power trip and must be penalized." Both occur. I'm assuming the first more than the last, but we can't ignore the fact there are a small minority of racist cops and they must be held accountable and this type of injustice shouldn't be swept under the rug. There I go playing devil's advocate. I agree with you, but there's always two sides. One reason our country has become so letigious is because there have been situations where people were falsely accused, law enforcement has abused its power, etc. The more things people do wrong, the more laws we feel should be put in place to combat those injustices. Sometimes the more laws there are the harder it is to get anything done (case in point Congress). Which leads us to your argument, law enforcement feeling like it can't truly do it's job. So yeah, I pretty much agree with you, but I see how it's become an issue. Does any of that make sense? ps - Isn't it cool that we only disagree on 8% of the things they listed? However, the way they described each issue was kind of narrow and doesn't take into the account the complexity of each issue. I guess that's where the debate comes in.

While my opponent continues to rest on the untestable, theoretical notion that forced pro bono work would dampen enthusiasm and cause attorneys to perform minimal for these clients, I have one more argument, and that is that not only is pro bono work a good thing it is also necessary in many places. Pubic defenders are paid for by the public. Not only would law firms requiring their attorneys to do pro bono work lessen the strain on these overworked and lowly paid officers of the court (Who are often so busy that they MUST perform minimal services), but it would also lessen the financial burden on the entire community, on the tax payers. What is constitutional is that accused persons have competent legal counsel. This may not be possible everywhere until we do mandate that attorneys give back to the community and court they are sworn to serve. Just saying that lawyers should give back is not enough. There are things about most peoples jobs they don't like to do, but it is important to their employers that they do, and it is important to the entire community, the taxpayers and the government that lawyers do pro bono work.

Thanks to Pro for the challenge. I will be arguing that school uniforms should not be required for two main reasons. 1. How we dress is an expression of our personalities. Requiring uniforms stifles a child's creativity, and ability to express himself through his/her wardrobe. 2. Dress codes can be enforced that stop kids from wearing clothing that can be a distraction, in the learning environment, thus there is no need to exert authority over what kids wear to school so long as it meets standards of decency. I look forward to Pro's arguments.


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

The debate on whether body cameras should be mandatory for police officers should not be conflated with the discussion on increasing surveillance cameras in public areas. The argument for increasing surveillance cameras in public spaces does not necessarily apply to the use of body cameras by law enforcement.

However, in the context of surveillance cameras in public areas, it's important to address the points raised against this proposition. The assertion that public spaces become private upon the installation of cameras is incorrect. Public spaces remain accessible to all individuals, and the presence of surveillance cameras can enhance the sense of safety for the public. The argument that increased surveillance cameras make public areas private is akin to suggesting that a grocery store becomes private when cameras are installed. This is not the case; the space remains open to the public, and the cameras serve to deter crime and provide evidence when necessary.

Regarding the cost-effectiveness of surveillance cameras versus security guards, it's clear that cameras are a more economical option. The initial investment in surveillance cameras is significantly lower than the ongoing costs associated with hiring security personnel. For instance, the cost of two surveillance cameras, which could be around $4,000 to $6,000, is far less than the cost of hiring two security guards for a single day at a store open from 6 am to 11 pm. The daily cost for security guards would be $680, which quickly adds up to $4,760 per week, surpassing the cost of the cameras in less than a week. Even considering maintenance costs for cameras, the total cost would still be lower compared to the salaries of security guards.

Moreover, surveillance cameras provide a level of safety and security that cannot be matched by security guards alone. Criminals are less likely to commit crimes in areas with visible surveillance cameras, as they are aware that their actions will be recorded. This deterrence factor is crucial in maintaining safety in public areas. Additionally, surveillance footage can be crucial in identifying and prosecuting criminals, providing irrefutable evidence of their actions.

In conclusion, the debate on increasing surveillance cameras in public areas should not be confused with the discussion on body cameras for police officers. The benefits of surveillance cameras in terms of safety, security, and stability are evident, and their cost-effectiveness compared to security guards further supports their implementation. The resolution to substantially increase surveillance cameras in public areas is justified, as it enhances safety, provides a sense of security, and contributes to the stability of society.

I'm going to keep this short since it's midnight and it is due soon, sorry I didn't post sooner, I have been very busy. Since you are so fond of scenarios I'll use one for an example. Imagine that you are the chief of police and you have just been informed that crime rates are out of control, you know from research that white males commit more crimes than black males, would you really just sit around saying, "I have an idea, lets split our forces evenly, and hope that the criminals decide to come to us"? This is what you have proposed, by saying that police profiling is bad. I would like to remind you that police profiling and how police treat suspects are two different things. A case of harassment, or abuse by a police officer based on race is racism, and has nothing to do with police profiling, which is simply a way of more efficiently deciding who may or may not be a criminal, so all arguments stating that this is an issue are pointless, considering they haven't been linked to the resolution. I would also like to make note of the fact that the resolution is "Police Profiling is a Good Thing", so unless you believe that all police profiling is bad because black criminals get pulled over more than white criminals I have no further arguments.

Obviously the way in which people would identify those who do not follow the unwritten laws of public transport would be discrete, otherwise all hell would break loose on a regular basis. You describe how Jean-Claude van Damme and Mike Tyson both on the same train being A-holes could be solved with a taser. I think this actually proves my point that a taser would be a terrible idea, because as soon as the initial sting wears off, you're going to have a dead karma-policeman on your hands/ major riot. We don't need this happening in our subways and buses. 30,000, 50,000; it doesn't really matter, either way it hurts a whole heckuva lot. Putting muzzles on people also won't solve the problem, it'll simply make people angrier and more likely to retaliate upon a karma police officer with extreme force. As I said before, taser guns will only add to the problem, not reduce it. The vast majority of people in the world prefer peace, and so a red, gold, and green based transit system would be best off. For the sake of a civilised and riot-free journey to work, I urge a Con vote. Gracias.

So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.

The intent of my position is to demonstrate that it would be a good idea for the government to ensure people are properly trained and certified before being allowed to purchase a firearm. First, the constitution labels gun owners as a "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment. The term "well regulated" implies that the right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to maintain a high level of training. Second, rights are no longer protected if they infringe on other peoples' rights or endangers their safety. Gun owners (myself included) own weapons for personal protection in many cases. Many who support a limitless Second Amendment often exclaim that more "good guys" with guns will help reduce crime. I tend to agree. However, such weapons in untrained and unfamiliar hands only compounds the potential danger to innocent bystanders in any situation where they would be used. Consider any of the mass shootings in schools or malls over the past 20 years. One untrained person trying to do the right thing and neutralize the shooter would actually make the situation worse, let alone several untrained people. Such do gooders would have a high chance of missing the shooter and hitting an innocent person, especially in a crowded area. It takes a lot of practice to suppress panic instincts and shoot accurately while under stress. For this reason, i propose it would be a good idea if the government ensured people received proper training before buying a gun

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.

As I have already stated, the reason it isn't rediculous for cops to issue tickets to persons not wearing their seat belts is because it is the police officer's job to serve an protect. This does include protecting you from your own stupidity if you choose not to wear one. They are paid to do this. Our tax dollars go to them to do their job. I for one am glad they're using our tax dollars in a productive way and doing their job. I'm not sure why you're even arguing the streaking law. You just reiterated what I said. We agree. What we don't agree on is the law. So I don't know why you even argued that fact. So basically, if a cop is paid to do his job by our tax dollars, wouldn't you want him to do his job to the fullest? And I suppose if you don't want to pay a fine, just do the right thing an buckle up. Buckling up has been statistically proven to save lives. So bottom line is, it isn't rediculous for cops to save lives.

I am just wanting input on Law Enforcement Agency Consolidation. What are some pros and cons? What about costs? What are some savings? Overages? Would it help with emergencies? Or make it worse? Should tasks be duplicated? Or create chaos? What about training, control of evidence, administrative functions? Effective or non-effective?

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

con argues background checks are a hassle to law abiding citizens. isn't it worth it if it saves thousands if not millions of lives? con argues checks do not deter criminals anyway. like i argued in my original post, some will surely break the law and get a gun. but not all guns will. even con said as much. "These checks wont do much to keep guns out of criminal's hands." it will keep some guns out of criminals hands. just having a gun causes a person to be more likely to commit a crime with a gun, and if someone is denied by virtue of a check, but they aren't hell bent on getting a gun, they are less likely to commit a crime. con argues background info could be made public. all i can say is it'd be rare for this to happen. criminal backgrounds in general could be made public, but you don't see that happening. and if it's rare, and the checks save thousands if not millions of lives, isn't it worth it?

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


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

Police officers must be mandated to wear body cameras during their shifts.
I contend that law enforcement officers should be legally obligated to wear body cameras while on the job. Given that the procurement of body cameras for police departments is a public expense, I am willing to bear the burden of proof in this debate. References should be provided in the text to support the arguments they are being used to substantiate. -Authority and power should be accompanied by accountability, a principle Sir Robert Peel recognized when he established guidelines for the world's first professional police force. As an example, "The effectiveness of the police is contingent upon public acceptance of police actions." Body cameras can serve as an oversight mechanism to enhance officer accountability and foster public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have a dual impact: they encourage law enforcement officers to maintain professionalism and also defuse confrontations with individuals who are less inclined to act improperly when they know they are being recorded. Pilot projects where police officers wore body cameras and the results were analyzed showed that complaints against officers decreased by over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Expanding on the notion that cameras can help defuse situations, they can enhance officer safety by making subjects aware that their actions are being recorded and could be used as evidence against them. -Although cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits for misconduct can be exorbitantly expensive for law enforcement agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can provide evidence to discredit false allegations against officers and prevent unwarranted lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to pay unnecessary settlements. -Police officers are safeguarded from unjustified accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they conduct themselves professionally and appropriately, and their behavior is captured through body cameras. I am eager to continue this debate with anyone willing to argue the opposing viewpoint.

I am taking the pro side of this debate. Any valid, factual argument may be used except for challenges to the legality of racial profiling.

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

Hello, WrickItRalph, Happy to debate with you today. I am L. 1. Men have a different body type than women, Which is why it's allowed for them to be topless. It's been the norm. 2. I'm afraid this is necessary. Yes, There are many different double standards between men and women but this topic is cut and dry. 3. I assume we won't be debating the legality of this then, Correct? My initial question was going to be if we were debating the legality or the morality of this. It seems we are going to the morality direction. I understand that it's legal in some places. Someone in the comments said it's legal in Canada, And you also expressed that it's legal where you are from. Don't you think it speaks volumes that women aren't comfortable being topless in places that it's legal in? Perhaps they don't want to get cat calls every second or to get sexually harassed. Women (not all women) are quick to scream sexual harassment and men are already seen in this bad light of being oversexualized perverted demons. Perhaps women simply aren't comfortable displaying their breasts so they wear a bra. 4. You have admirable reasons for women's right but you are going the wrong direction. When you say public, Do you mean beaches or parties and things of that nature? If so, I can understand that. I am unsure how broad your statement of "public" was. I know of nude beaches. Those are justifiable since it's just adults and plus, People have the choice to keep on their clothes. So, Some instances they can be allowed I suppose. I don't really care what someone decides to do or reveal their body, It's their choice. In other instances such as walking down the street on a hot day, Jogging, Going swimming where children may be present, Mowing the lawn, Attending a water park (where men can get away with being topless and are allowed to be topless) women shouldn't be topless in those particular situations. In places where it is illegal, It counts as public nudity. Reason is women's breasts are usually blurred out on television and on pictures. It is generally concealed to where at least the nipple isn't visible. If you aren't arguing the the fact that you think it should be legal throughout everywhere, Then dismiss this point. I'm not sure if you want to bring legality with the morality as well. Please let me know. Concluding question: Do you think little girls should be topless? I await your response. - L.

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

I will answer to each of my worthy opponents arguments: 1) Con writes that RP does not work. Well, it does [1][2]. 2) Con writes that RP erodes public trust. To a certain extent that is true. However, more is gained from RP than what is lost due to non reporting. Additionally, the source con cited is talking about illegal immigrants. Well, I must say that they deserve to be profiled. If a Latino walks into the police station, in an area near the Mexico border, that person should be profiled, especially being that the border is very porous. Also worth mentioning: Cons source provided no proof or legitimate source for their claim. 3) Con writes that RP is unethical. Law enforcement is morally obligated to profile. It is quite clear that certain types of people are more likely to commit certain crimes [3][4]. Although some people will be inconvenienced by it, it is still a tool that cannot be wasted. Sources are in comments due to character limit.

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

con argues background checks are a hassle to law abiding citizens. isn't it worth it if it saves thousands if not millions of lives? con argues checks do not deter criminals anyway. like i argued in my original post, some will surely break the law and get a gun. but not all guns will. even con said as much. "These checks wont do much to keep guns out of criminal's hands." it will keep some guns out of criminals hands. just having a gun causes a person to be more likely to commit a crime with a gun, and if someone is denied by virtue of a check, but they aren't hell bent on getting a gun, they are less likely to commit a crime. con argues background info could be made public. all i can say is it'd be rare for this to happen. criminal backgrounds in general could be made public, but you don't see that happening. and if it's rare, and the checks save thousands if not millions of lives, isn't it worth it?

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

Weapons are absolutely necessary to have in every school. Since 2010, there has been 43 school shooting throughout the United States. Not all of these school ended in causalities because they had a police officer near by the school. It is impractical for a teacher to pick a classroom object, such as a ruler, to stop someone with a gun. If a police was patrolling the school, most of these conflicts would be stopped before they even happen. All teachers should have some object to go up against the shooter in case the police can not reach the room in time, like pepper spray. School is suppose to be a safe place to send your children not some place to be scared of.

"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.