Points: 14

There should be police who's only job is to police the police.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Wrick-It-Ralph
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 6
Description
Taking BoP.. Also willing to accept resolution for shared BoP if the argument steers that way.
I will be arguing that their ought to be an independent police force designed to keep the police in check.
alternatively, I will also accept a resolution of having police forces divided into districts that police each other. This is assuming that Con makes a good case for this.
Round 1
Published:
1.  Police are employed in order to enforce the law. 

2.  Police are sometimes allowed to justifiably break these laws themselves for the sake of their job. 

3.  Sometimes Police take this too far. 

4.  While there are agencies dedicated to police conduct, they cannot always be around to see everything that happens.

5.  To solve this, police should be able to keep tabs on each other and enforce laws on each other when they are going too far.

6.  Police who work together everyday are less likely to keep each other in check.


Conclusion.  We need a police force apart from the main police who strictly has the authority to only deal with police affairs.

Your Floor  
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
pass
Published:
Hello,

There shouldn't be police whose only job is to police the police. In order to do their jobs, police are sometimes forced to break laws to carry out their jobs. If you want to stop this, you should change the debate topic to 'It is lawful to break the law' instead.
Round 3
Published:
You said:

There shouldn't be police whose only job is to police the police. In order to do their jobs, police are sometimes forced to break laws to carry out their jobs. If you want to stop this, you should change the debate topic to 'It is lawful to break the law' instead.
Telling me to change the topic after you already accepted is bad conduct and bad faith arguing. 

Furthermore, I addressed this in my opening.  Cops sometimes have to break the law (I use this term lightly because it's technically not illegal when they do this)

However, Cops are not justified to break the law in all cases and having a separate entity keeps them in check. 

If your best argument is to tell me to change the debate topic, then I find your argument lacking. 


Your floor. Try to actually rebuttal me this time. 
Published:
Yes, I know what you mean, but don't you get my 'hidden meaning'. I wasn't literally telling you to change the topic, I meant that breaking the law is sometimes necessary for cops. And now, my rebuttal:

Yes, sometimes cops go too far, but they usually don't. Even if it does occur, there are already tons of people to take care of this.
Added:
--> @K_Michael
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for arguments
RFD: I don't agree, per se, but my vote is honest. Personally, I think that a personally leveled law enforcement to watch the law enforcement is a drain on public resources and tax dollars that isn't worth it. If there was more evidence of major crime by police officers, then Pro would be justified. RationalMadman made plenty of points in the comments, but strictly between pro and con, Pro won.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Finally one is not permitted to "piggy back" off of other user's RFDs or comments. All RFDs must be original.
*******************************************************************
#15
Added:
--> @Joshua_Stebold
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Joshua_Stebold // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Although Pro accused Con of bad conduct, Con's next argument settled this. Pro took it a little too literally. However, to me it is bad conduct for accusing your opponent of having bad conduct as you don't really have the authority.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
(1) The conduct point is not sufficient. In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
Finally when awarding only a conduct point, the voter must still explain why the arguments should be a tie.
*******************************************************************
#14
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for the vote
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @K_Michael
Thanks for the vote
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @Speedrace
thanks for the vote
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @Alanwang123
Thank you for the acceptance.
Of the debate... Not my ideas.
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Internal affairs doesn't do street beats. They work in the aftermath of corruption usually.
Also, not the same. Anti corruption is more about the police force as a whole, I'm trying to address things at an individual level.
I.A. and AC isn't going to do either of these things.
Instigator
#9
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Countries either have this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)
Which is literally the organisation that does what you want.
OR they have this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-corruption_agencies
Which is slightly less technically as they are cops not secret agents but other than the highest ranks of the police (which still have to answer to them) noone knows some of the AC officers' identities (they publicly are not listed in records as part of the initiation but the records are still existent just top secret). The highest ranking cops in these nations do know the highest ranking AC officers' due to relationships necessary for massive ops but as I said even knowing the highest ranks doesn't entitle then any true authority against AC if AC were to investigate them but they do have authority over AC regarding specifics of when to give them the "go" etc.
#8
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
You're talking about something different than me. I want a cop that pulls a cop over when that cop is speeding. I want a local force with a street beat.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
They don't. AC is so above them that they actually go undercover and drink the beers under an alias. Trust me when I say you don't know what you're talking about here. It already exists and the other cops hate and fear AC.
#6
Added:
Those things exist but are essentially homogenous with the police force due to social circles and congruent professional interest. We need a separate entity that isn't out drinking with the cops on Saturday and going to their kid's soccer games, etc.
Instigator
#5
Added:
Someone's never heard of anti-corruption units.
#4
Added:
Doesn’t this already exist? Aren’t there internal protocols and inter-judicial things to keep police accountable? Also they wear body cams right?
#3
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I wouldn't necessarily be against that. But I think at some point it becomes impractical to go too far with it. You don't need a third police force per se because the 2nd police force doesn't have nearly as much power as the police do. It's like a check and balance thing. Or you could think about it being like the game stratego where the Spy is the weakest piece in the game, but there's a special exception where the spy can capture the highest ranked piece only. So think of it more like coherentism circle. That's actually what formal checks and balances look like. A circle. so we even have a previous standard to look upon to make sure it's done right.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Infinite regress?
So no-one should police the police police?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro offered a reasonable starting point for why the police police are necessary. Cons counter is initially to try and change the debate topic, then amounts to little more than assertion in the final round.
The idea that police sometimes go to far was intuitive and reasonable: and while minimal - no argument at all was offered by con prior to a final round that pro was unable to reply to. As a result, arguments must go to pro.
Conduct to pro also due to cons forfeit of round 1.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument:
Pro showed why we need the extra layer of policing. Con barely said anything in response and Pro easily beat it down.
Conduct:
Con forfeited. That's bad conduct.