Police should be allowed to use lethal force/torture (Point 3)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
No information
RFD in Comments
Argument:
Con's argument was essentially never refuted, Pro never even attempted to rebuke Con's points on the role of police officers in the community, and instead only talked about how Police might act in cases of war or terrorism; however, Con correctly pointed out that there are people literally specially trained to deal with that situation, not the police.
Con's actual argument was decently solid - they used the key principle that the police are used to protect the public, and being violent would undermine that duty - this argument in the first round solidly fulfilled Con's BoP - and seeing as Pro never actually refuted the point - Con easily wins on arguments.
Pro you never sold me on the point of terrorism mostly because you never even attempted to respond to your opponent - repeating the same argument over and over after your opponent has already rebuked it is not very effective at convincing me of your resolution - and Con you did a good job with the starting argument and refuting Pro's points; however, if they actually had responded they could have very easily countered your position about what the duty of the police are - you should back that up a tad more next time with more sourcing and preferably a syllogism. A good starter debate though.
RFD
I vote con because without BOP (Burden Of Proof) analysis, BOP falls on Pro to prove the resolution true. This means that we look at his singular argument about how to handle terrorists and ask if it proves the resolution true. Con shows that terrorists aren't handled by the police and Pro doesn't answer this, making it a good Con argument.
Notes
Pro
Don't put all your eggs in one basket and rely the entire debate on one argument. Also, add sources hyperlinked into the debate.
Con
Don't forget to extend your arguments you made in the first round. Pro didn't answer them, but you still need to point out that they dropped them or you end up dropping them to.