Before I get into it, I'd like to apologize for any missing spaces. I copy and paste my argument from a Word Doc, and it removes spaces seemingly at random. I try to go back and add them all in but I miss some.
First, my opponent says that they should get to say specifically how they cut the budget. This should have been in the description.My opponent should only be able to advocate for what’s in the description and resolution, especially since, as the author, they wrote what was in there. Without Holding them to that, the debate becomes misleading, trapping me in a debate I Wasn’t prepared for. If we look at the resolution and description, the onlything my opponent have access to fiating is the cutting of police budgets of mid-size to large cities by 5%. Any other action has to be a result of that,otherwise I lose all ability to negate the resolution on Con, especially since I’ve created my entire negative strategy based on the resolution not being shifted so I could show an alternative story of how police would deal with budget constraints. If my opponent wanted to cite specific budget cutting, that should be put in the description.
Reducing Prison Populations
First, my opponent cites where jails are spent on by local governments, but the problem is that the majority are ran by counties. My Opponent is trying to cut mid-size to large city police budgets, this means a county, not city, jail would have zero effect on the budget cuts he’s calling for. He showed that cities spend money on police, and I don’t doubt that, but I doubt that focusing on jails mostly ran by counties will be beneficial in cutting city budgets.
Second, if my opponent calls for prison populations, extend my source that shows they are mostly federal, state, or private and not locally owned.
Third, my opponent says that my argument about rural jail populations is proof we need to cut police budgets, but the problem is that Prois advocating for cuts in mid-size to large cities. This means that rural America That has the rising jail populations get left behind and don’t get the benefits. My opponent further cuts the cities lowering populations and leaves the cities getting worse alone.
Unbundling the Police
First, while this is an extension of the framework and its application to this point, it still stands. Without legislative reworking that my opponent can’t guarantee police jobs will be unbundled and cities will shift the money into social programs. Police departments could cut conflict de-escalation training and give raises to the mayor.
Second, without guaranteeing the creation of entirely new local agencies within these cities, the only way to be able to try and gain access to these services would be to create departments within the police department with more community outreach-based goals. This is going to cost money out of the police budget. This means cuts to the budget are going to make it harder to shift the police to a multi-faceted organization with the ability to employ social services.
Third, police training is lackluster. 39% of agencies require conflict management training.
On top of this,departments on average only spend 8 hours training with Tasers, 25% of the necessary time according to the manufacturer. This shows that more resources need to be specifically put into police departments with specific goals. If you cut funding, police departments won’t be able to train to avoid violent confrontation, meaning police will still be just as violent.
First, extend the framework argument to show that simply cutting funds does not guarantee that 1033 will be where the money is going to be cut from.
Second, my opponent continuously misleads you with how much the police departments spend on this. While the article cites “More than $1.7billion of surplus has been transferred over to police around the country over the past decade,” this does not mean that is what police departments paid forit. While that is the value of the equipment, we have to remember the police department only pays for shipping. My opponent’s use of these financial statistics is to mislead you, but remember, if the source just adds a value to the amount of equipment transferred, then police are not paying that amount, they’re just receiving that for near free.
First, my opponent citesthat the EU spends less on prisons and this is part of the low crime rate but extend the entire prison debate as reason this doesn’t apply.
Second, my opponent cities cultural and economic factors for crime rates. If that much goes into the issue, then we need to see how we might not be able to make simple comparisons like the one my opponent tried to originally make about police spending. That Means this whole point should be a wash.
I don’t think this point is evidence for the status quo, I think this is evidence for accountability and reform, but Pro is advocating for just cutting the budget in the status quo and hoping police will take it lying down. If this debate was Abolish civil forfeiture, reform the police, create social programs, etc., then this argument would be great evidence that something needs to be done, but when the resolution is to just lower their budget and hope they’ll play nice, then it forces these kinds of actions. We need to take these reformative actions first before simply cutting budgets. Remember, this debate isn’t a referendum on police, it’s a question of if cutting budgets 5% for mid-size to large cities will lead to a better world or not. As long as police have the legally ability to practically mug people, then there won’t be a better world because police will just use this to circumvent the budget cuts.
First, my opponent says that if we can simply get rid of the bad cops, then we won’t need privatization.Sure, but if you just cut 5% of the budget, what will happen? This Privatization is a possibility that some cities are playing around with.
Second, my opponent cite the benefits of no qualified immunity and no unions, but there’s two problems with this. First, unions can form in any industry as a lobbying force, so this could happen in the future. This lobbying could then lead to qualified immunity as we see it for cops. If it happened once, then there’s an empiric precedent to say it will happen again. The second issue is that this doesn’t outweigh the two impacts I cited. Security being a luxury and less public accountability are much bigger issues to deal with then a most likely temporary reprieve from unions which would lobby for immunity.