Resolved: Law-enforcement-caused death and injury to U.S. citizens are not by epidemic proportion.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
It is argued by many that Law Enforcement-caused death and injury has reached epidemic proportion, and the result is that serious changes to America [constitutional-level adjustment?] is necessary. According to definition [see below], an epidemic is any issue [not necessarily related just to health issues, such as a flu outbreak] that is currently increasing in incidents over a common, repeated period of time, such as by year [annually].
Those who argue the position that law enforcement-caused death and injury of U.S. citizens generally overstate the volume of incidents by excessive, and unspecified count of incidents; remarking only that it is occurring “all over the country.” I am declaring the pro position of the argument, that is, that incidents of police [law enforcement]-caused incidents of citizen death and injury is not epidemic, while recognizing that it does occur. I argue that the incident of the issue still requires more preventive measures, but I completely disagree with the claim that law enforcement ought to either be de-funded, or eradicated. My opponent will argue the opposing view; that serious limitations on our police forces must be enacted.
There is a general lack of reliable data from which to draw statistics, even though the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, section 210402, required the Attorney General of the United States to collect and issue an annual report of justifiable and unjustifiable law enforcement-caused deaths in the United States from all 50 states. The complete report has never been issued in 26 years apparently because the bill did not contain any enforcement measures to assure the report would be issued.
Definitions:
Epidemic: [Typically of a disease] Prevalent among a people or community at a special time, and produced by some special causes not generally present in the affected locality. *
Law enforcement deaths: Unjustified death caused by direct police action [by law or policy, and less so by common sense, but it may have application].
Format: Open, but no new arguments in last round; only rebuttal / defense / conclusion
*I habitually use the OED for all definitions. I recognize this dictionary as the ultimate of the English language. Unless one owns either the hard copy 20-volume set, or an online subscription [I have both] it is unavailable for reference. On my honor, I am fully quoting the definitions given.
A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeit
Arguments: CON conceded the debate
Conduct: use of pejoratives by CON is not appreciated.
Full credit to PRO for troll smiting
Concession (+ extra conduct points for Pro because Con called Pro racist)
Concession, but one full of baseless insults.
Concession and forfeiture.
Didn't mean to leave you off. Just discovered can't have more than five recipients. Who knew? Thanks for voting.
Thank you all for voting, much appreciated.
Trent, it's all good, not like I need the points, just wondered
You probably deserved sources too. I just chose not to assign it out of laziness.
I'm not going to report your vote, but I'd appreciate an explanation why sourcing is a tie when Con offered zero sources. Not that quantity of sources is a measure, but, clearly, there is a distinct difference in the lack of quality sourcing when no source is offered while I have all hard data sourced.
Then I suppose the clock on the debate counts down, the forfeit of round 4 occurs, and I can enter my conclusion, and done. That's okay by me.
He is now fully banned from the site, so will not be participating further.
Given your comment #16, how do I proceed in this debate, given EricT's concession? I extended argument of 3, considering the concession much like a forfeit, adding that I would enter a fourth round. It seems by your post #16 that my plan is still appropriate, or does the ban [more than a restriction] cut off all access to the site? pls advise.
The restrictions imposed were against joining new debates, judging debates, casting votes, and finally reporting votes.
You were still able to complete debates to which you were already participating (and by showing improvement have the restrictions eased), comment, do forum stuff, etc.
Multi-accounting whilst banned is not allowed on this site.
hello. its EricT. I have a new account because my other was banned from everything
Ok. Thanks.
Ibid is short for Latin "ibidem"meaning "In the same place." it is used to refer to a reference immediately above the ibid reference without having to repeat the entire reference again. If there is a string of references calling out the same source, ibid is used for as many consecutive references are in the string. If other references intervene, and a same source is cited again, the entire reference must then be listed again.
same source/reference as above
What does ibid mean?
That's too bad. However, we are engaged in a good one, and there will be others.
aw man. I wanted to finish up another debate and take this one. But, looks like I can't do it now.
Since there is such a dearth of quantitative data on the police violence issue, is there much evidence available to make a case for or against? I know of some sources, but it's certainly not a holistic data set. Something will inevitably be left out.
If a member of a police force dies in action, and that action was caused by another officer, and the action was unjustified, yes, it is an unjustified police action because police officers are also citizens.
What if a police dies in action? Would that be a law enforcement death? Or does it only apply to criminals/innocent bystanders?
I have added to definitions in full description "law enforcement deaths"
Define law enforcement deaths.
I acknowledge all those other issues, but the debate needs to be focused, and I've defined mine. Not going to solve all society problems in one debate. I will not even try. Note that I am not even seeking how to resolve anything. Just arguing that for these two issues, death and injury caused by police, is not at epidemic proportion
while it is actually a lie that injury isn't part of it, the main issue is deeper than just this. The frequency of wrongful convictions, overly-brutal sentences and the very pressures (financial and sociological) that drive one to crime are all very much harshest against those of the 'black' race due to many things in the past trickling down generations.
The gap between whites and blacks of average income, education quality and stuff like that is getting worse (but obviously not 'worse' than literal slavery) as time goes by. The less opportunity they have, the more pressures there are to become a criminal to ever be more than a blue collar worker for life on a dirt-cheap wage that can barely uphold themselves, let alone their families, especially if relatives get sick.
It's also the case that generally speaking, caucasians in poverty have somehow got distant relatives to help them out, however I am not suggesting that they have it 'easier' by a large margin at all. The issue is that the system is overall rigged against blacks because due to all the things I've mentioned there is a bias against people of that ethnicity that says they are more likely to have done crimes (since they're more commonly driven towards it as they are desperate for money and have far less opportunity to get it). This bias runs deep in both mentality of not hiring and promoting them as well as convicting them of crimes.
This is the core thing that needs to be altered in MANY 'white' countries that previously enslaved and continually discriminated against blacks in recent generations. The effect is still being had on blacks alive today and that is what needs to be stopped.