Instigator / Con
10
1439
rating
7
debates
7.14%
won
Topic
#2825

The police should be demilitarized

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description

Definition

Militarization of police= "The militarization of police is the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and Special Weapons and Tactics teams. " Wikipedia

I would of course be arguing against the resolution stated in the debate title and my opponent for the resolution.

-->
@fauxlaw

Because I figured you would see reason without, but as you can tell - I did appeal to mods.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Why are you appealing to me? I'm not a mod. That's where you go, but be certain of your position, because I did declare you the winner by default.

-->
@Theweakeredge

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote isn't even eligible for moderation as it votes in favor of the presumptive winner under a disqualification...

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
**************************************************

-->
@fauxlaw

First of all, you brought exactly zero percent of that up - second of all... what? I touched on THE BIGGEST PART of the militarization of police and the second biggest things, I established an entire section for the ethics of utilizing military strategies on civilian populations - and rebuked my opponent regarding their argument - it is EXTREMELY clear that you did not read the thing carefully if that's your take away

Finally, you are the one who always harps for others to be extensive with their voting, the lack of self-awareness is legitimately frustrating.

-->
@Theweakeredge

1. Of course you think your argument was more convincing, but your argument chiefly attacked military weaponry, and, as Pro pointed out, there's more to militarization of police than just weapons. You raised the training time issue, noting the increased hours of training of military personnel over the police, but manage to avoid the fact that all military training is not on weapons; your chief complaint in this matter.
2. The number of your arguments vs. your opponent is not a valid argument since, A, there was just one round of argument, even by you, B. The number of arguments, as with sources, is not the critical analysis.
3. Your argument had a rebuttal because Con offered the first argument and had nothing to rebut in R1, whereas, you did. But rebuttal fits under the generic description of "argument," as does defense; it is not a separate judgment matter that, in an effectively 1-round debate, has value.
4. Look, you won the debate, by what point value is not the issue and is not a rating factor, so, what's the beef? I didn't have to say anything other than a default win by full forfeiture. Dude.

-->
@fauxlaw

Dude - "but neither side's argument was convincing over the other" and that's it, aren't you the one who likes to ensure that every vote point is valid? Seriously, even you should see that my side is definitely more than a little more convincing- and completely ignoring the fact that I set up an entire framework, established that my opponent was untopical, and had multiple attack points versus his one - my argument had a rebuttal, which is inherently going to make mine more convincing.

This wouldn't even both me if you had brought up a single point in it - it just seems to me that you scanned through the debate, figured that my work balanced out against what you believed to be the "true" conclusion, and tied it. Again, if you had brought up even a single point I wouldn't be that bothered by this, but this is extremely low energy for you - even if I disagree with your voting, most of the time you do put the work in - so even I disagree I at least know your doing it right, I don't think you did that this time.

Though my opponent is no longer here - I complied with the asking to post at the last moment

We should privatize the police. Get the government out of the policing industry and let private companies compete for business. They have incentive to improve their services that the government does not have.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I am about to post my argument. If you can please wait until the last minute to post yours. If you can't wait, no big deal. It's just a simple request but I will request voters give you a conduct point if you do that in all remaining rounds