Instigator / Pro
0
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#132

Resolved: The US should abolish traffic cameras

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1491
rating
6
debates
41.67%
won
Description

== Definitions ==
For the purpose of this debate, traffic cameras will be defined as any device used to catch drivers violating traffic laws and enabling the state to issue citation to the said driver (I.e. red light cameras and speeding cameras) without a sworn police officer present.

== Structure ==
1. Opening arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Closing

10,000 characters maximum.

I'm all against police brutality and I acknowledge it's existence, but all cops are not pigs. Maybe it's possible that most joined law enforcement to, y'know, enforce the laws, not kill unarmed blacks for fun.

Didn't I vote on this lol?

> Fair enough. Yeah all cops are basically pigs. I don't trust the police and serious reform is needed

All policemen? No.

I’m sad this was a tie

-->
@Logical-Master

Fair enough. Yeah all cops are basically pigs. I don't trust the police and serious reform is needed

-->
@David

I'm fine with leaving it as a tie if you want. I only took this debate because it involved issues I deal with on a regular basis. Traffic cameras may have their flaws, but I've seen crooked cops do a heck of a lot more damage to people's lives than cameras ever have!

-->
@whiteflame

Fair enough. I ff’d two rounds and would hate for my opponent to have this debate a tie. Would still like argument feedback though

-->
@David

Not sure if I'll have time, but I'll try.

-->
@Tejretics
@whiteflame

Would love some solid votes on this debate

-->
@Alec

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources

>Reason for Decision: Con cited significantly more then Pro.

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site voting policy: "The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity...This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." By failing to assess the relevance and strength of the sources in the debate, and by failing to examine any specific sources, the voter fails to adequately justify awarding sources points.
************************************************************************

They're mostly BS cuz the cities shorten the yellow signal intervals to legally indefensible times in order to generate more revenue. You might win if you fight back, but hardly anyone ever does.

-->
@AndrejG

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AndrejG // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for Arguments and Sources

>Reason for Decision: The contender made more convincing arguments in contrary with the instigator, who failed to find the time to back up much of her side to this debate, causing it to resemble Swiss cheese in many areas unlike to arguments the contender made. As such, without any backed up refute by the instigator for a good portion of her argument, I find that the contender's sources for his arguments held much better, and as such found them to be more reliable and credible than the instigator's numerous potentially biased and inaccurate sourcing.
Spelling and grammar seems fine for both sides. Organization was superb for both.
I had originally put the contender for better conduct, but I'm really not a fan of pushing for us voters to vote for the side their supporter thinks is best. Let us be the judge of that.

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must identify the main arguments and counterarguments made in the debate and weigh these arguments against each other to arrive at a decision. The voter does not do this. To award sources points, the voter must "explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for." The voter does not do this.
************************************************************************

-->
@Logical-Master

Hey I'm really sorry for forfeiting. I had a lot going on. Thanks for the debate. Would love to revisit this topic

-->
@Logical-Master

Correct.

-->
@David

To be clear, R1 is simply time alotted for the purpose of providing affirmative arguments for our respective cases, correct? As in, no responses to yours?