Instigator / Pro

1516

rating

debates

100.0%

won

Topic

#2881

(police brutality point 2)

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Ahmad_Abdelrahman

Tags

Society

Parameters

Publication date: 03.14.2021 08:17AM
Last updated date: 03.22.2021 06:13AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Ibrahim_Alburi

1484

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

Ahmad_Abdelrahman

03.14.2021 11:22AM

Pro

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.

Ibrahim_Alburi

03.14.2021 11:57AM

Con

Police brutality is not a settlement for peace and justice, but it is the irrational prejudice used by police against minorities and certain convicts for the sake of self-fulfillment. According to a study done by researchers from Harvard, black people are over 3 times more likely to be killed from police brutality than are white people. This research concludes to an even deeper meaning than what was stated, it reveals that police brutality revolves around the fulfillment of racially targeted prejudice and unjust treatment against minorities and convicts, rather than for the pursuit of a more peaceful and rational environment.

Round 2

Ahmad_Abdelrahman

03.15.2021 06:12AM

Pro

I understandthat police brutality is a major issue.

I alsounderstand why many people would be concerned if police were allowed to useviolence, especially if it is used by prejudiced police men towards minorities.

While thisviolence can be used unlawfully it is still worth mentioning that it can bringabout peace and justice to discriminated against minorities.

How might the use of violence help minorities you may ask.

Well, policecan use violence in order to effectively punish prejudiced individuals whopromote brutality against minorities. This can discourage any further prejudicetowards these minorities.

So what mightseem as a problem on hinge sight may very well help solve a problem manyminorities are facing today.

So in myopinion the benefits of allowing police to use force in specific situationsoutweigh the possible risks

Ibrahim_Alburi

03.15.2021 06:13AM

Con

According to your argument, police brutality is justified given the actions of the alleged criminals. Despite this referred to as the pursuit of peace and justice, multiple statistics speak otherwise. According to statistics, minorities in the U.S. account for over 60% of being victims of deaths from police brutality. Despite that, white people are accountable to 76% of the US population, whereas minorities are only 24%. It concludes that while these minorities don’t sum up to a fourth of the US population, they still sum up to the majority of these deaths done by police. While some victims may have been dealt with justifiable deaths, it is narrowed down to the fact that most of these deaths are triggered by racial and xenophobic intentions, hence this proves that lethality is for a policeman's self-fulfillment and NOT for the pursuit of justice and peace

Theweakeredge

03.15.2021 06:57AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

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