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

The Philippines should reconsider the "Shoot to Kill if Armed" policy against criminals. Police misconduct, such as planting weapons, is a significant concern, and while body cameras could provide transparency, they may not be financially viable given the current economic state. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a beneficial investment. In the meantime, a potential solution could involve requiring officers to provide video evidence of a situation where they felt threatened, leading to the use of lethal force. This would result in immediate exoneration if the footage supports their actions. Additionally, for scenarios where lethal force is not necessary, such as a suspect charging with a knife, officers could carry high-strength pepper spray as an alternative. This wouldn't solve all issues immediately, but it's a step in the right direction. Regarding drug policy, drug addicts should not be punished but rather provided with mandatory treatment upon arrest with drugs, recognizing addiction as a mental health issue. The focus should instead be on penalizing drug dealers harshly, with charges of assault for each confirmed sale and murder for any overdose-related deaths. For a comprehensive approach, the regulation of substances like tobacco and alcohol should also be considered, as they often serve as gateways for addicts.

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.

This is a debate in whether schools should require uniforms. First Round: Accept. Second Round: Arguments. Third Round: Rebuttals. Fourth Round: Acknowledge and Refute Rebuttals. Fifth Round: Closing Arguments. Let's have a good debate!

The government has a right to make laws about dress code. My points include, but are not limited to: 1. Sagging or any gang-related clothing is unacceptable in most schools, as a schools objective should be to prepare students for the real world, and dressing for success is most important in job applications and other major life decisions. 2. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the right "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " This means that Congress can legally make laws about a public dress code. 3. For men, sagging and gang-related clothes, and for women, short skirts and lots of bare skin are considered very unprofessional. Imagine walking down the street eating your McDonald's nuggets and you see a mans boxers and butt hanging out of his pants. I don't know about you but I would lose my appetite. This is why the government should impose laws about a dress code. Not only is it beneficial for impressionable school students, but it would also provide for a more professional public society.

I can be somewhat mechanical in my responses to say the least. I simply listed the definitions, because it was a spec in your formatting. The structure for my argument will be as such: [1] Gun Laws do Not Deter Crime [2] Guns Deter Crime [3] Violates Second Amendment and Betrays Law Abiding Citizens. I will now begin with the main structure of my argument. [1] Gun Laws do Not Deter Crime While some studies have shown that there is a correlation between firearm related deaths and areas that have higher rates of concealed carry and ownership, none have them have ever been able to show a direct link. I granted myself the luxury of taking a look at source [1] that Pro uses for her opening statement, saying quote, 'areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general'. She failed to add the following notion, ' But studies haven"t been able to show a causal relationship " that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence.' The essential point to take away from this is that social factors are invariably the biggest determination when it comes down to gun violence. A Harvard study in 2007 points out that the main reason that the level of gun ownership in a society does not spur a respective crime rate is that murders are not evenly spread out among the population. Typically this falls to criminals who have an extensive affiliation with crime. To this extent, even if all law abiding citizens were armed, crime would not significantly rise. Additionally, if one takes the adverse effect into account, removing firearms from public ownership will also have no negative effect on crime rates, given most criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources. According to the BJS of criminals who owned a gun at the time they were arrested, 40% obtained guns from a non registered source. However, this stat does not account for criminals who actively used the firearm, which is a much smaller group than the aforementioned. Any simple analysis will conclude that removing guns from public ownership has a minimal impact on gun crime rates, and multiple studies have shown that if one removes a firearm from the possession of a person intent on causing harm, they simply turn to other means. Case in point is the former USSR, which has the most intensive gun laws of any nation at the time, but also had the highest homicide rates among all developed nations. In a more relevant context, 90% of all violent crime in the US is not related to the use of a gun. To complete this segment, social factors are the prime determinant for firearm crime, not the firearm itself. [2] Guns do Deter Crime According to another BJS study, 60% of criminals admitted to avoiding attempted homicide or assault when they knew the victim was armed, and 40% admitted to cancellation of a hostile act when they even surmised that the intended victim might be armed. 74% of incarcerated individuals confirmed that they feared entering a home while the owner was present under the pretense of being shot, and 57% of felons reported that they are more concerned about meeting an armed individual than they are law enforcement. Another primary example is Kennesaw, GA, which passed a law mandating heads of households to own a firearm in 1982, and consequently burglary and assault rates dropped 89% in the following year. Another study showed that firearms are used around 2.5 million times a year in an action of self defense, nearly 80 times the number of instances guns are used in a violent and fatal act by criminals. Even more interesting, citizens shoot and terminate more than twice the amount of attackers [1527 : 606] than law enforcement, and the error rate is only 2% among these occasions, whereas the police have an error rate of 11%. [3] Violates Second Amendment and Betrays Law Abiding Citizens. Banning ownership of firearms from law abiding citizens who are statistically unlikely to use them in illegal actions does nothing to alleviate crime, and also deducts from lawful practices such as hunting. In the process, you also destroy or negatively impact many establishments and settlements who use hunting and other sport as their primary source of income. During the year of 2011, there were 13.7 million licenced hunters age 16 and older who spent in total 7.7 billion on assault arms and rifles, used for sport. By banning ownership of these weapons, you deduct from a large economic source of revenue, and in turn tax dollars that go to federal and state funding. I have shown: [1] Gun laws have little to no effect on violent crime. [2] Guns in fact do deter crime. [3] Banning guns has a negative impact on not only the economy, but also individual practices.

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

1) Many cases involving the standard basis for search 'probable cause' including Cost v. Commonwealth and many more didn't result to a conviction- law enforcers make assumptions and jump into false conclusions. Source: http://www.vachiefs.org... 2) Police officer's hunch or also called 'probable cause' is not enough to legally search someone's car. It is not enough facts or evidence to believe that someone is involved in a criminal activity by smelling any type of drugs or liquor. Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org... Source: http://fox6now.com... C) United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority

Complete resolution: If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards. The purpose of the hiring of security guards would be for the safety of the innocent unarmed people in the area against potential criminals, who might carry weapons into the area illegally. Con will be arguing that armed security guards should not be required.

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, 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......

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


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

Should all police officers be required to wear body cameras? No, they should not be mandated to wear body cameras. Police officers are granted authority for a reason and should be trusted in their duties. They should be held accountable for their errors, which they often acknowledge. While it's true that they can make mistakes, the majority of officers take responsibility for them. Should we also install surveillance devices on all ex-convicts post-release? No, because we believe they will not reoffend and trust them to honor their commitment to lawful behavior.

My argument will essentially revolve around 4 key situations that are somewhat made up by myself and somewhat based on something I either saw in a fictional series/movie or from a real-life situation that I am dramatising for effect.Target in Scenario #1: The CopTarget in Scenario #2: The NerdTarget in Scenario #3: The HoarderTarget in Scenario #4: The Terrorist (To make my opponent happy)Scenario #1: There is an illicit Cartel supplying drugs and running many factions of dealers throughout India and you are one of many suppliers, you lead a bunch of dealers and boss them around and have done so happily for the past 4 months, you got promoted for being a very experienced dealer and making good friends with certain people high up. Thanks to this, you actually became a supplier after working for the Cartel for only 2 years, the minimum anyone outside of the boss' family got to be supplier before you was 4 years, making you a record holder for fastest outsider promoted to supplier. Now, it turns out that your faction's boss has got wind that one of you are an undercover cop. Now, that isn't too bad, right? Well, not for Mister Daniels who has worked with the corporation by force, nor for Miss Robertson who has helped kill a few people on demand. In fact, it's not really bad for anyone apart from you and Mister Wilson who's sitting in front of you, hands tied behind his back and at your mercy, the clock is ticking; you have two hours to make him talk. There's a camera and the two of you, he's tied and you're not. You were given the benefit of the doubt because the boss liked you better but if he doesn't spit it, they're going to torture you and you will either end up admitting to being a cop or get tortured beyond your sanity's limits. Admitting to being a cop will mean that they will kill your family and hand you over to some 'boys' of theirs although it would be better to call them terminators. Now, you have pliers, electricity, acid and a hammer. Time is ticking, make it count. Oh, and if you're thinking of running away and calling the cops or rewinding time and doing that to being with then I should let you know you that you had literally ten seconds form the time you knew that you're a drug supplier and the cops will only give you immunity if you can hand over names but you don't know anyone's real name in the Cartel, and if you happened to dupe one of them via sketch-work they would know it was you the same way they found out there was a cop in your faction to begin with. The room is locked, there are two men outside with machine guns and you are not trained in any martial arts.Scenario #2: You are in an exam, it's run by the Mafia. The one who passes it will become their appointed medic, the other 8 will be killed. Their families will be left alive to suffer the consequences. You were born into this life, it doesn't matter how you got here, there is no going back. You walk into the exam room, you only know the other 8 by vague meetings and passing by in certain Rendezvous points. The clock starts ticking, there are apparently no rules, you have two hours to find out what a Kilpwalelu is and none of you seem to know... Well none of you other than the one guy who picked up his pen and put it o paper only to get gagged by the shirt of another and put on his chair while another use his tie to handcuff him. The first to write the full description/definition of what a Kilpwalelu is passes the exam, if all 9 of you fail all of you die. He knows the answer but pretends that he was just going to guess, you need that answer and sit watching as the other two torture the guy. Suddenly a guy leaps out of his chair and snaps both their necks in two swift moves (clearly he was originally aiming to be a hitman but so much for that). He screams "I vill not stand for Zees! Zerrr mahst be Anahzer vay!". So you try and reason with the nerd say you'll let him free once he tells you the answer and give him a pen and you all begin at the exact same moment and finish it. You think you guy have beaten the system until he, himself, tell you that if more than one person happens to pass at once, you will be put in a pit to fight to the death. Realising that the guy who just killed to people has an unfair advantage you all grab his limbs and stabbing his neck with a pen, letting him to bleed to death on the floor. There's four of you standing and one guy tied to a chair, there are one hour and twenty minutes left. The guy is already half beaten up by the two original guys. You need this answer or your mother won't have enough money to survive, neither will your newly found girlfriend who has become somewhat financially dependent on you considering that you live in Sicily and the Mafia control everything. So, one hour and nineteen minutes are left to find the answer and if anyone else had knows they'd have written it down by now while you were distracted by the torture and killing. It's obvious that only this one guy in the chair knows and that he's not willing to give the answer up.Scenario #3: If you've watched Lost, season 1 then this will simply be recall for the most part (sorry if this is a spoiler but this is actually a very early scene in Lost and has very little plot value other than that you find out that Sayid was an Iraqi torturer which becomes common knowledge throughout the camp by Season 2). If you haven't watched Lost then I'll lay it out for you. You are one of the surviving members of a plane crash on an island. There's a hoarder, who calls himself Sawyer, that has been stashing an awful lot of things on the plane, such as watches, shaving foam, shampoo and even socks. A girl suddenly breaks out in an asthma attack and begins choking. There's a doctor who tries to calm her down and it works for a while. in the meantime, her medicine can't be found and Sawyer was found to have one of her books, from the same suitcase as her asthma medicine. When asked if he has it he neither denies nor admits it until you tie him to a tree and begin sticking sharp folded leaves with a hard edge up inside of his fingernails making them feel as if they're going to rip off. He demands to see a girl named Kate but when she comes he merely demands that she kiss him or he wont' tell her where the medicine is only to reveal that he never knew where the medicine was to begin with. He could be lying, after all, realising that he can no longer admit he has it since there's nothing to gain but torture. Additionally, he just blackmailed a kiss out of a respected member of the community. The only reason that, in Lost, the torture doesn't proceed any longer is because the girl coped without the medication. However, what if she really began choking and the asthma inhaler replacements couldn't be found anywhere and the only reasonable lead is a compulsive liar named Sawyer who happens o be at your mercy while this girl is choking to death and he may well be sociopathic enough to let her die just for the hell of it. You know nothing about him and he's just as much of a stranger as the dying girl but if you don't torture him you will be indirectly responsible for her death if he really does know where the medicine is and is lying about it; which is very common behaviour for him. Would you let her die for the sake of being civil to a sociopath?Scenario #4: There's a terrorist attack that's about to kill millions of people and you are the head of interrogation for the CIA. You have a guy who is 99% certainly involved with the terrorist attack that's about to occur in the next four hours. He is revealing nothing and truth serum and persuasion of each and every kind falls on deaf ears. Will you torture him or let thousands die at your metaphorical hands? The choice is yours but just remember that if you fail to get this information within the next four hours you will be fired as head on interrogation and possibly have your entire career ruined as will as allowing the lives of many to be destroyed.

students should be required to wear uniform. it makes the school seem more in unison. you may disagree with me and say students need to express themselves but there are other ways you can express yourself. Furthermore, my school which doesn't use uniform encounters bullying and students break the dress code. we gave them an opportunity to express themselves and they took that for granted. wearing uniform also saves families money. Also, the amount of bullying based on outfits will decrease because everyone will be wearing the same thing.

I appreciate your response to my argument. "In response to my arguer, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if driving w/o your seatbelt can cause you to get hurt and not die, or harm other people in the car. I'm saying that it should not be enforced." The fact it does affect those passengers in the vehicle as well as yourself, proves that other lives are being put in danger. If you are the driver of a vehicle and you have a passenger along for the ride, his/her life is directly your responsibility. You are responsible for this person's life, just as you are responsible for your life. This brings me to my next point... "It should definetely be recommended by athorities and everyone should wear them, but if they don't that should be their own fault if they get hurt in an accident." It IS recommended by authorities. It is also recommended by DPS, as evidence with all the radio and television commercials telling us to "click it or ticket." Police officers are sworn to serve and protect their citizens and part of serving and protecting includes issuing citations to those who do not obey the laws. So this fact alone makes it not "ridiculous." Wearing seat belts saves lives. Not just your own, but also your passenger's lives. If a passenger is not wearing their seat belt, the driver of that vehicle should also be responsible and should also take the citation if issued one. http://www.cdc.gov... "It's not like DUI where you can cause damage to others on the road." The issue isn't whether it causes damage to others on the road, but whether it is ridiculous for police officers to issue tickets to persons not wearing seat belts. And the fact that not wearing a seat belt while operating a motor vehicle is illegal, it most certainly is NOT ridiculous. "It's like getting fined for having annonymous unprotected sex, it's dangerous because you can very likely get a sometimes deadly STD but that don't mean you can go around fining people for banging at their own consent." Having unprotected sex is not illegal, you're correct on that. However, this isn't even a good argument for comparison. Operating a vehicle is a privilege we are given if we pass the tests and are old enough. There are no tests to pass to engage in sexual contact. The highways and city roads are regulated by the government, whether it be the federal government, state government, or city. They set the rules and they make sure the rules and laws are being followed. A police officer's job is to make sure these laws are being adhered to. Therefore, it is not ridiculous for them to issue a ticket if one of these laws are being broken, including not wearing a seat belt. There are many laws that are in place that don't necessarily save live directly or indirectly. Jaywalking is illegal and it only effects the person involved. No one else's life is in danger. Yet this law is to help protect someone from being hit by a vehicle. It's against the law to run naked in public. No one's life is in danger, but the law is necessary, because children may be present. You made the point that cops should just give you a warning and then it should be up to the individual if they want to follow the warning or not. If a law is being broken and lives are in danger, a warning is not enough.

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

I dont think there should be because registration equals confiscation and it has happened in many other countries like austrilia and the uk where before guns were taken away they had to be registered so they knew exactly who has them or where to go! It wont stop a criminal from getting a gun at all! The goverment has no business knowing what anyone owns!

I have accepted the challenge to debate the Proposition regarding the statement that "The government has the right to make laws about dress code", and wish good luck to my opponent. I believe that the government does not have the right to make laws regarding dress code. The Proposition began by saying that students in schools need to dress for success in order to get a good job and that it is vital when making life decisions. I would like to point out that while this statement may or may not be true, it does not support the statement that the government has the right to make laws regarding dress code. Secondly, the Prop. states that the Elastic Clause (Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution) gives the government the right to make any laws that are needed for the government to be able to execute their powers smoothly. Quite frankly, a man or woman's appearance does not in anyway interfere with the power of the government. The Proposition also fails to state why that this clause is significant to the topic at hand and gives no real argument that proves why the clause is important. Finally, the Proposition states that seeing a man's boxers will cause a person to lose their appetite, and while this statement is intended to be slightly comical, it is merely a reason backing up the reasons why the government "should" enforce a dress code, rather than CAN the government enforce a dress code. Now on to my points. 1. Included in the first amendment of the United States Constitution is the statement that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging free speech. " This amendment gives every American citizen the right to free speech, whether it be through how a person dresses, how a person looks, how a person speaks, and so forth. This amendment is limited when the free speech is endangering national security, or harming another person, and last time I checked a person's sagging pants, or miniskirt did neither of those two things. 2. If the government had made laws regarding a dress code, it could possibly go against someone's religious beliefs. This is also unconstitutional and therefore would be considered unlawful. 3. Even though some clothing can be deemed offensive or inappropriate, removing the clothing would not be removing the message and could cause that person to take other actions worse than wearing an offensive shirt. For example if a person is wearing a shirt that bad-mouths a certain person, removing the shirt would only be removing the first layer of the problem and would not be treating the core of the problem.

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

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

I accept. I believe that Universal Background Checks aren't necessary in the United States. I think that the reason for most of the shootings in America is not that there is little gun control, but that the law enforcement to catch these criminals is seldom strict enough. "there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks." You're right that there is potential, but there is plenty of information to support that background checks would be ineffective. Yes, background checks would keep criminals from legally buying guns, but criminals will be able to get guns no matter what. They can go to friends and relatives, or buy assult rifles off the black market. So, background checks would be ineffective. http://m.mic.com... "not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun." Call me when you meet a convicted murderer who isn't a diehard. Even most gas station robbers own guns and are prepared to kill someone. "the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it." This is true, but the vast majority of people are more likely to use a gun for hunting. Their problems with their guns will most likely be something like gun cleaning problems. I wouldn't refer to a cold blooded murder as a "problem". "a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have." You said overall deaths, not shootings. Also, countries with very strict gun control also have very high murder rates. Such as Russia. http://www.gunpolicy.org... Also, even if there is to be background checks, it should be enforced at the local level of government. People in New York City don't use guns as much as someone in rural Wyoming. " isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?" Actually, no it isn't. Most people use guns for good purposes like hunting and the shooting range. I look forward to your arguments.

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.


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

Police officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty. However, for today's argument, I will present reasons why body cameras may not be necessary for police officers at all times. My primary value is justice, and I will demonstrate that body cameras may infringe upon people's rights and negatively impact the community. First, body cameras can be seen as an invasion of privacy. When they are on, they capture all interactions between civilians and police, which some people may find uncomfortable and a violation of their privacy. Legal protections against searches that invade privacy also apply to recordings, and not everyone is comfortable with being recorded, especially if the recording could be embarrassing or stigmatizing. Second, body cameras can be costly. A single camera costs around $350, and many small jurisdictions may not have the budget to provide cameras for every officer. This could result in financial strain and additional debt. Third, a camera cannot replace a thorough investigation. While it may replace some witness testimony, witnesses can provide more reliable evidence as they can perceive three-dimensional events, whereas cameras only capture two-dimensional images. A recording does not provide a complete picture of the event and requires further investigation and analysis. Therefore, with these and other reasons, it may not be necessary for police officers to wear body cameras at all times. However, I still believe that body cameras should be mandatory for police officers while on duty.

1) Many cases involving the standard basis for search 'probable cause' including Cost v. Commonwealth and many more didn't result to a conviction- law enforcers make assumptions and jump into false conclusions. Source: http://www.vachiefs.org... 2) Police officer's hunch or also called 'probable cause' is not enough to legally search someone's car. It is not enough facts or evidence to believe that someone is involved in a criminal activity by smelling any type of drugs or liquor. Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org... Source: http://fox6now.com... C) United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority

The government has a right to make laws about dress code. My points include, but are not limited to: 1. Sagging or any gang-related clothing is unacceptable in most schools, as a schools objective should be to prepare students for the real world, and dressing for success is most important in job applications and other major life decisions. 2. Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that Congress has the right "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " This means that Congress can legally make laws about a public dress code. 3. For men, sagging and gang-related clothes, and for women, short skirts and lots of bare skin are considered very unprofessional. Imagine walking down the street eating your McDonald's nuggets and you see a mans boxers and butt hanging out of his pants. I don't know about you but I would lose my appetite. This is why the government should impose laws about a dress code. Not only is it beneficial for impressionable school students, but it would also provide for a more professional public society.

My argument will essentially revolve around 4 key situations that are somewhat made up by myself and somewhat based on something I either saw in a fictional series/movie or from a real-life situation that I am dramatising for effect.Target in Scenario #1: The CopTarget in Scenario #2: The NerdTarget in Scenario #3: The HoarderTarget in Scenario #4: The Terrorist (To make my opponent happy)Scenario #1: There is an illicit Cartel supplying drugs and running many factions of dealers throughout India and you are one of many suppliers, you lead a bunch of dealers and boss them around and have done so happily for the past 4 months, you got promoted for being a very experienced dealer and making good friends with certain people high up. Thanks to this, you actually became a supplier after working for the Cartel for only 2 years, the minimum anyone outside of the boss' family got to be supplier before you was 4 years, making you a record holder for fastest outsider promoted to supplier. Now, it turns out that your faction's boss has got wind that one of you are an undercover cop. Now, that isn't too bad, right? Well, not for Mister Daniels who has worked with the corporation by force, nor for Miss Robertson who has helped kill a few people on demand. In fact, it's not really bad for anyone apart from you and Mister Wilson who's sitting in front of you, hands tied behind his back and at your mercy, the clock is ticking; you have two hours to make him talk. There's a camera and the two of you, he's tied and you're not. You were given the benefit of the doubt because the boss liked you better but if he doesn't spit it, they're going to torture you and you will either end up admitting to being a cop or get tortured beyond your sanity's limits. Admitting to being a cop will mean that they will kill your family and hand you over to some 'boys' of theirs although it would be better to call them terminators. Now, you have pliers, electricity, acid and a hammer. Time is ticking, make it count. Oh, and if you're thinking of running away and calling the cops or rewinding time and doing that to being with then I should let you know you that you had literally ten seconds form the time you knew that you're a drug supplier and the cops will only give you immunity if you can hand over names but you don't know anyone's real name in the Cartel, and if you happened to dupe one of them via sketch-work they would know it was you the same way they found out there was a cop in your faction to begin with. The room is locked, there are two men outside with machine guns and you are not trained in any martial arts.Scenario #2: You are in an exam, it's run by the Mafia. The one who passes it will become their appointed medic, the other 8 will be killed. Their families will be left alive to suffer the consequences. You were born into this life, it doesn't matter how you got here, there is no going back. You walk into the exam room, you only know the other 8 by vague meetings and passing by in certain Rendezvous points. The clock starts ticking, there are apparently no rules, you have two hours to find out what a Kilpwalelu is and none of you seem to know... Well none of you other than the one guy who picked up his pen and put it o paper only to get gagged by the shirt of another and put on his chair while another use his tie to handcuff him. The first to write the full description/definition of what a Kilpwalelu is passes the exam, if all 9 of you fail all of you die. He knows the answer but pretends that he was just going to guess, you need that answer and sit watching as the other two torture the guy. Suddenly a guy leaps out of his chair and snaps both their necks in two swift moves (clearly he was originally aiming to be a hitman but so much for that). He screams "I vill not stand for Zees! Zerrr mahst be Anahzer vay!". So you try and reason with the nerd say you'll let him free once he tells you the answer and give him a pen and you all begin at the exact same moment and finish it. You think you guy have beaten the system until he, himself, tell you that if more than one person happens to pass at once, you will be put in a pit to fight to the death. Realising that the guy who just killed to people has an unfair advantage you all grab his limbs and stabbing his neck with a pen, letting him to bleed to death on the floor. There's four of you standing and one guy tied to a chair, there are one hour and twenty minutes left. The guy is already half beaten up by the two original guys. You need this answer or your mother won't have enough money to survive, neither will your newly found girlfriend who has become somewhat financially dependent on you considering that you live in Sicily and the Mafia control everything. So, one hour and nineteen minutes are left to find the answer and if anyone else had knows they'd have written it down by now while you were distracted by the torture and killing. It's obvious that only this one guy in the chair knows and that he's not willing to give the answer up.Scenario #3: If you've watched Lost, season 1 then this will simply be recall for the most part (sorry if this is a spoiler but this is actually a very early scene in Lost and has very little plot value other than that you find out that Sayid was an Iraqi torturer which becomes common knowledge throughout the camp by Season 2). If you haven't watched Lost then I'll lay it out for you. You are one of the surviving members of a plane crash on an island. There's a hoarder, who calls himself Sawyer, that has been stashing an awful lot of things on the plane, such as watches, shaving foam, shampoo and even socks. A girl suddenly breaks out in an asthma attack and begins choking. There's a doctor who tries to calm her down and it works for a while. in the meantime, her medicine can't be found and Sawyer was found to have one of her books, from the same suitcase as her asthma medicine. When asked if he has it he neither denies nor admits it until you tie him to a tree and begin sticking sharp folded leaves with a hard edge up inside of his fingernails making them feel as if they're going to rip off. He demands to see a girl named Kate but when she comes he merely demands that she kiss him or he wont' tell her where the medicine is only to reveal that he never knew where the medicine was to begin with. He could be lying, after all, realising that he can no longer admit he has it since there's nothing to gain but torture. Additionally, he just blackmailed a kiss out of a respected member of the community. The only reason that, in Lost, the torture doesn't proceed any longer is because the girl coped without the medication. However, what if she really began choking and the asthma inhaler replacements couldn't be found anywhere and the only reasonable lead is a compulsive liar named Sawyer who happens o be at your mercy while this girl is choking to death and he may well be sociopathic enough to let her die just for the hell of it. You know nothing about him and he's just as much of a stranger as the dying girl but if you don't torture him you will be indirectly responsible for her death if he really does know where the medicine is and is lying about it; which is very common behaviour for him. Would you let her die for the sake of being civil to a sociopath?Scenario #4: There's a terrorist attack that's about to kill millions of people and you are the head of interrogation for the CIA. You have a guy who is 99% certainly involved with the terrorist attack that's about to occur in the next four hours. He is revealing nothing and truth serum and persuasion of each and every kind falls on deaf ears. Will you torture him or let thousands die at your metaphorical hands? The choice is yours but just remember that if you fail to get this information within the next four hours you will be fired as head on interrogation and possibly have your entire career ruined as will as allowing the lives of many to be destroyed.

I appreciate your response to my argument. "In response to my arguer, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if driving w/o your seatbelt can cause you to get hurt and not die, or harm other people in the car. I'm saying that it should not be enforced." The fact it does affect those passengers in the vehicle as well as yourself, proves that other lives are being put in danger. If you are the driver of a vehicle and you have a passenger along for the ride, his/her life is directly your responsibility. You are responsible for this person's life, just as you are responsible for your life. This brings me to my next point... "It should definetely be recommended by athorities and everyone should wear them, but if they don't that should be their own fault if they get hurt in an accident." It IS recommended by authorities. It is also recommended by DPS, as evidence with all the radio and television commercials telling us to "click it or ticket." Police officers are sworn to serve and protect their citizens and part of serving and protecting includes issuing citations to those who do not obey the laws. So this fact alone makes it not "ridiculous." Wearing seat belts saves lives. Not just your own, but also your passenger's lives. If a passenger is not wearing their seat belt, the driver of that vehicle should also be responsible and should also take the citation if issued one. http://www.cdc.gov... "It's not like DUI where you can cause damage to others on the road." The issue isn't whether it causes damage to others on the road, but whether it is ridiculous for police officers to issue tickets to persons not wearing seat belts. And the fact that not wearing a seat belt while operating a motor vehicle is illegal, it most certainly is NOT ridiculous. "It's like getting fined for having annonymous unprotected sex, it's dangerous because you can very likely get a sometimes deadly STD but that don't mean you can go around fining people for banging at their own consent." Having unprotected sex is not illegal, you're correct on that. However, this isn't even a good argument for comparison. Operating a vehicle is a privilege we are given if we pass the tests and are old enough. There are no tests to pass to engage in sexual contact. The highways and city roads are regulated by the government, whether it be the federal government, state government, or city. They set the rules and they make sure the rules and laws are being followed. A police officer's job is to make sure these laws are being adhered to. Therefore, it is not ridiculous for them to issue a ticket if one of these laws are being broken, including not wearing a seat belt. There are many laws that are in place that don't necessarily save live directly or indirectly. Jaywalking is illegal and it only effects the person involved. No one else's life is in danger. Yet this law is to help protect someone from being hit by a vehicle. It's against the law to run naked in public. No one's life is in danger, but the law is necessary, because children may be present. You made the point that cops should just give you a warning and then it should be up to the individual if they want to follow the warning or not. If a law is being broken and lives are in danger, a warning is not enough.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.


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

Should all police officers be required to wear body cameras? I believe that police officers should be mandated to wear body cameras as it ensures transparency and provides an accurate account of events, particularly in cases of police-involved shootings. This way, we can have a clear understanding of the true story behind such incidents.

Yeah the cameras aren't for security but to make sure no one gets hurt! There hasn't been a good reason given to force people to wear something on the heads. It's their choice! Who are you to reject them?

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?

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

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

As you will see, Con drops part of his case, and shows a very venomous attitude towards the US, a bias which should make most of his arguments invalid. ===Con Counter=== A) Private Security is more flawed than Public Law Enforcement. 1) Con claims private security is more ethical, despite it having a history just as bad or worse than the public sector [1]. The definition of ethics [2], clearly shows that previous contention for private security shows that I am correct. It is a system that is just as susceptible to abuse as public security, and even more so due its overall lack of discipline, regulations and control. It is not superior to public law enforcement in any way. My opponent is very vague in his counter, but I believe the proper rebuttal to him is this: People will use private guards for unethical purposes, much worse than upholding a drug law. 2) Nukes act as a deterrent, that is their goal. And yes, I am proposing that the things we invest in should be used and protected, such as police. Part of being a LEO is that you have power of arrest, so yes that is a special right. Police only hunt down those who have broken the law. 3) Con drops this topic 4) "This is not third grade. The policeman is not automatically your BFF." ---I do not understand how this relates specifically to my 4th point. And it is juvenile. 5) Con is now using the current laws to defend his arguments while he is dismissing others. Bad debating. If you attack someone first, and he responds with deadly force, that is a gross misuse of that force and you are entitled to defend yourself, not sit there and die like Con contends. B) Police Protect You 1) My opponent is comparing drug use and rape, a victimless crime and a very vile crime, to get his ideas across. People absolutely have the right to fight government physically, its a way of preventing tyranny. Police and government have special rights because we allow them to, and for the most part they work for our benefit. 2) Con misunderstands sarcasm for an apology. Con misunderstands private security, since they cannot enforce laws, they are not law enforcement. Con misunderstands the fact that private security is controlled by private companies and bought by private consumers, a minority. They provide no assistance to the public at large unless they purchase their services, a feat which is not possible for most of the country. Size of the private security has nothing to do with this. a) Con contends that groups of people should band together and buy security if they are too poor. I ask what is the difference between this and the public security we have now? Sounds a lot like being taxed and funding public police departments. 3) Apparently they wouldn't be controlled (as much) in minarchist state, so how does your argument apply here, Con? 4) It would not be robbery, it would be delicious. It would only be robbery if you used the goods in my kitchen to bake it. a) "Therefore, government is not committing robbery." ---Con concedes my point 5) By all means the voters should read the source. Con may be taking his quote out of context, so I insist on a voter reading. It is bordering on conspiracy theory to believe that the US intentionally destroys third world nations. I ask Con to provide reasons for the US doing so, since this is his contention. a) Con also completely avoids my contention that the US has done much good in the world, and is committed to a smearing contest against the US. This is bad debating. 6) I specifically said: "...in a minarchist society the people are protected from aggression, breaches of contract, theft and other basic law protections. But realize that your going to need a body to form those laws, officers to enforce them, and judges to determine your innocence. There's still going to be taxes in a minarchist state and a military also..." I do not see how this represents a misunderstanding of a minarchist state. I admit my thoughts were confusing at this point, as I was both asking Con to consider hypothetical situations, but I do indeed know what a minarchist state is. D) Police are directed by the same laws as us 1) Responding to arrest with deadly force permits the use of deadly force on the LEOs behalf. Like stated before, if I push you and you pull out a gun and try to shoot me, you grossly misused force to protect yourself, and I have a right to shoot you back since now it is a matter of self defense. a) Nothing is stopping criminals from pulling out guns except the consequences of their actions. ===Counter to Con Case=== A) Police attack innocent people 1) 2) Agreed, but see my earlier arguments for fuller explanation. B) Police Protect Real Criminals 1) Con displays inability to count. Going from strike 1 to strike 10,000, and calling the number of totalitarian regimes "countless" shows a very obvious bias against the US. I cede that it ha its short comings, but it also does good, like any other state does, including the minarchist. Con refuses to accept this fact. C) Police shouldn't be invincible 1) Con claims drug users have right to shoot at apprehenders, but rogue officers do not. This is contradictory. Rogue officers do indeed go to jail, I do not understand why this is a major contention of my opponent. ===Conclusion=== I'd like to thank my opponent for the thought provoking debate. I sure wasn't expecting this when I posted my topic. I still stand by my original contention that if an officer is threatened with deadly force he has a right to respond back with the same force, and not have his hands tied by state or federal regulations. Regardless of the style of government you have, some people will find some laws unjust, when they may in fact be very warranted. I do not have an opinion on drug legalization because I do not know enough about the topic, and what will happen if legalized. Maybe it will be good, maybe it will be bad, I cannot say at this time. Every state has done horrible and wonderful things in their existence, of this I am sure. As they are human inventions, they both benefit and suffer from the same characteristics humans have. Minarchy to Dictatorship, all governments will have pros and cons to them, and assuming that none of the abuses we see in modern society will not exist in our ideal form of government is a foolish assertion. In regards to victimless crime, such as drug use, and the involvement of police, it is the attitude of the drug user that determines the outcome of the arrest. If Con thinks the law is unjust, he should be attacking lawmakers (verbally hopefully), and not the police. Police do indeed have the right to arrest you, and they are paid to follow the law. Attacking the police will not bring about the change you so desire. Most of my opponents arguments are based off a hypothetical system of government, that cannot be judged without a bias or acceptance of the unknown. He uses hate tactics to incite anger towards the US and police officers, without admitting a good side to them. He has flip flopped between minarchy and the status quo to suit his argument, and makes references to supposedly better law enforcement systems (such as private security) that do not do the things he is trying to describe. I hope the voters will see these inconsistencies and that logic has not succumbed to personal opinion. Vote Pro [1] http://www.ehow.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

"It is ridiculous for them to save lives IN THAT WAY."So you're saying it is ridiculous to save lives in that way? That's basically saying it's ridiculous to save lives if it doesn't make sense to you or if you don't agree with it. I would think it important for someone in authority to save lives in ANY WAY POSSIBLE. Especially when it's their job to do so.With most people, a verbal warning is not enough. Most people don't listen to verbal warnings. So giving a verbal warning doesn't seem like a great way to take care of this problem. And why pull someone over if all you're going to do is tell that person to put on their seat belt? That makes less sense than issuing a citation. "If the statistics of people who die from not wearing their seat belt doesn't scare you enough, than it's your loss."Statistics don't scare me. Reality does. I would think that someone scared by statistics would be apt to agree with the safety issue and the prevention of said danger. If you want people to be safe, precautions must be taken. The question would be what type of precautions if you don't agree with the current laws. If you don't agree with something, the best thing to do would be to come up with some alternate ideas.I have already given reasons as to why I don't agree with the assertion that issuing citations to those not wearing their seat belts is not ridiculous, so I will leave it at that. Safety laws should be continued as long as they work. Seat belt citations work.

"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.

Cost"Smart boards are being put up in the Spanish and band classrooms which is useless because this whole entire year, my teachers have used the expensive boards only to draw on because they are confused by all the devices"This is your mere assertion. You have no evidence smart boards are expensive, no evidence smart boards are put in unnecessary clases, no evidence that teachers don't know how to use them, no evidence they aren't worth the cost, etc. If bullying is a major issue in school the child can report it for free. The U. S. tax payers should not have to shell out millions of dollars because kids are to scared to tattle on a bully. That's ridiculous. If kids really want bullying to stop they can report it themselves. They don't need a $1000 dollar camera to do it for them. I'm also assuming the cameras will be on for 6 hours and that you are requiring teachers to view all of that. That either require you to pull teachers from their jobs to pay them watch hours of useless footage and they might miss something like the sale of a drug. Or you will have to pay a security guard more money to view the footage. Cameras are too expensive. SecurityI have already explained that school shootings are unlikely and that a cheaper and more effective way would be to allow teachers to carry their firearms on campus. You are asking schools to spend several thousands dollars plus the cost of a security guard to prevent an event that will more than likely never occur. If 2 or 3 teachers at a school kept guns at a home allowing them to bring them to school would be free and would be more effective at stopping a shooter than mere cameras. PrivacyRegarding privacy, in gym class, people don't mind dressing with members of the same sex. There also aren't teachers watching. Even moreso people don't use the same bathroom stalls, which is a popular place where the sale and use of drugs occur. In order to prevent a good deal of illegal activity, cameras need to be installed in bathroom stalls. Now I for one don't mind being seen naked if it's for a good security reason such as when I go through security at an airport. But many do mind and therefore they don't go to airports. You are forcing everyone who doesn't make the choice to go to school to be forced to reveal themselves naked, in the bathroom, etc to school officials. Yes we know teachers won't go around telling others what they saw, but we don't want them to see us period. ConclusionIn conclusion my opponent has offered no evidence that smart boards are useless, expensive or implemented in many classrooms unnecessarilyMy opponent has no proven that forcing schools to spend thousands of dollars on security cameras is more effective than simply allowing teachers to carry their firearms at home on campusMy opponent has not shown how it makes sense to force schools to spend thousands on security cameras to catch bullying when kids aren't willing to do it themselvesMy opponent has not shown how it is ethical to subject students to the embarrasment and stress, who are forced to go to school to have themselves, without choice, be displayed naked, using the bathroom, etc to the very teachers that teach them.

Drivers should be penalized for not wearing a seat belt. It is uncivilized to not wear it and it is also against the law in many states.

I accept. I believe that Universal Background Checks aren't necessary in the United States. I think that the reason for most of the shootings in America is not that there is little gun control, but that the law enforcement to catch these criminals is seldom strict enough. "there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks." You're right that there is potential, but there is plenty of information to support that background checks would be ineffective. Yes, background checks would keep criminals from legally buying guns, but criminals will be able to get guns no matter what. They can go to friends and relatives, or buy assult rifles off the black market. So, background checks would be ineffective. http://m.mic.com... "not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun." Call me when you meet a convicted murderer who isn't a diehard. Even most gas station robbers own guns and are prepared to kill someone. "the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it." This is true, but the vast majority of people are more likely to use a gun for hunting. Their problems with their guns will most likely be something like gun cleaning problems. I wouldn't refer to a cold blooded murder as a "problem". "a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have." You said overall deaths, not shootings. Also, countries with very strict gun control also have very high murder rates. Such as Russia. http://www.gunpolicy.org... Also, even if there is to be background checks, it should be enforced at the local level of government. People in New York City don't use guns as much as someone in rural Wyoming. " isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?" Actually, no it isn't. Most people use guns for good purposes like hunting and the shooting range. I look forward to your arguments.