Instigator / Pro
0
1531
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic

should police be allowed to use lethal weapons/torture

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1469
rating
3
debates
16.67%
won
Description
~ 194 / 5,000

In this debate we talk about how police should or shouldn't be allowed to use lethal force or violence . Many political problem are occurring because police's use of lethal weapons and violence.

Round 1
Pro
Richard j Daley once said ‘The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder’ in my opinion, police should be allowed to use lethal force and torture in order preserve peace.

Now for my point
 
They say fight fire with fire so, if someone poses lethal threat to the community, then why can’t the police respond with the same force? Its only logical, right? for example, if there is a group of terrorists, drug dealers, or a mafia who try to disturb the peace cycle; the police must take action. Peace and freedom, these things wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the drastic measures the police take everyday. I believe it is necessary for police to be allowed to torture criminals for information. If a gang member is caught, they can squeeze information out of him to catch the rest.

Con
Point 1 (Mohammad Hakmeh):  

Why use lethal force when the police can use non-lethal but just as effective weapons.

Technology today is the most advanced it has ever been yet the abuse of lethal weapons by police is at an all-time high, with over 1000 deaths every year caused by lethal force. Which if you think of it is a very irrational and not safe nor smart. With the advancement of technology, engineers have created advanced weapons that are non lethal and as dangerous but just as effective as lethal force and weaponry.

How would you feel if someone close to you got really hurt or died because of the abuse of weaponry. 

Some inventions that could replace lethal weapons for the better: 

  1. Ammunition (rubber bullets) 
  2. Explosives (stun grenades or flash bangs) 
  3. Gasses and sprays
  4. Sticky foam
  5. Area denial
  6. Riot gun
  7. Electroshock weapons
  8. Directed-energy weapons

Round 2
Pro
(counter argument)

Hakmi said that technology is advancing so we won’t need to use lethal weapons.  The same logic can apply with defense, for example a rubber bullet can’t do anything against a bullet proof vest and a pepper spray can’t do anything if the person wears goggles. Even though technology is advancing we can’t maintain peace if we don’t use lethal weapons.


Con
Counter Argument(Mohammad Hakmeh) :

I actually disagree with Abdulmalik’s point which was to fight fire with fire, but why don’t we try to fight fire with water, why don’t we try to put out the fire instead of fighting it with more fire which as a result we would have a bigger fire. We learn at school to not fight back so that a bigger fight occurs we learn to go tell a teacher what happened that way you can put out the fight and not cause a bigger problem which non of us will benefit from. Lethal weapons solve the problem quickly but not forever, it might make the bad side( gangs,mafia’s…etc) even more furious and wanting revenge for that reason we have to learn to stop fighting fire with fire and try to put out the fire in a non-lethal way.

Links I used for my research(Mohammad Hakmeh):