Instigator / Pro
7
1516
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

(police brutality point 2)

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ahmad_Abdelrahman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
4
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 786 / 5,000

violence is needed in cases dealing with serial serial killers. A serial killer is a person who killed at least 2 or 3 people. So it is not hard to see why using violence is the only proper way to deal with them as they have already proven that they are too dangerous for society.
There were a total of 16,425 reported homicide cases in the U.S. in 2019 alone. This number of deaths surely must justify violence used towards killers and serial killers.
Many research in the field of psychiatry shows us that almost all serial killers are either psychopaths or sociopaths meaning that they show little to no empathy to their victims.
So the question arises why should the police use non violence towards serial killers when they themselves show no empathy towards their many victims.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments
- Pro started out explaining that police would have to use violence to subdue serial killers
- Con completely ignores the point and talks about Police Brutality in regards to minorities
- Pro responds that Police Violence could be used to mitigate PB to minorities
- Con completely ignores the point and talks about the disproportionate amount of minorities killed by police

If this was an argument about whether or not police brutality affected minorities in general then Con would win this - but not only is that not what this debate is about - it is more generally about brutality - Con also completely ignores Pros arguments in both rounds. Furthermore, neither debater linked any sources to substantiate their arguments. This means that any impact Con could have is completely diminished. I actually agree with Con here; however, Pro won this debate on the points argued in the round - his argument about violence towards serial killers was never addressed, even if I buy Con's arguments regarding minorities. The resolution (nebulous as it is) seems to be broad enough to account for any Police Brutality - therefore Pro wins this on argument