Interesting topic although rather freewheeling with overgeneralization so far. Of course, the Maghreb in its turn would owe much to Europe & Asia. Would the Almohad Caliphate be what it was without Roman colonization, visigothic revitalization, or Byzantine trade? I might argue that the Dark Ages are mostly bullshit, or that the inhabitants of the Barbary (Berber)Coast were definitionally more barbaric than Europeans, whatever the evolution of that word since, or that the Black Plague did more to save Europe than Islamic medicine and trigonometry might ever hope.
Disagree. I’m still trying to puzzle out your thesis. So Con is “Africans ought to have saved Europeans” which sounds worthwhile enough although I can’t tell to what event(s) the instigator refers- the crusades? The moors?
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
100% of PRO's R1 was cut & pasted from Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America." PRO added some transitional sentences in R2 to create the illusion of an original response to CON but actual arguments continued to be robbed from D'Souza. All of PRO's arguments must be discounted due to theft- leaving essentially forfeits for every round.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
CON stole entirely from one source without attribution. PRO's sources were plentiful and quality ranged from good to excellent.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
CON stole his spelling and grammar from a professionally edited manuscript. PRO's spelling & grammar was both excellent and original.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
CON's theft of intellectual property is the least forgivable conduct this voter has seen on this site, even potentially exposing this site to potential (even if very unlikely) legal action. This voter recommends intercession by site moderators to warn CON regarding this theft and also monitor this user for future violation.
yeah. well we can keep discussing in forum. If interest picks up I might still join or we might do a one-on-one version later on. I like the topic & the more I read about it the more it seems like a potentially good idea when implemented right- although I'd still argue that we should kick the Fed subsidies out first before taxing.
You use that word tryhard a lot, in fact it was you that got me to look it up a few weeks ago, but I am increasingly convinced you don't understand the word. The definition is usually something about a person of little to no talent posing as a person of more talent. Your usage consistently indicates something else....below you say this debate is easily won unless a tryhard accepts. If a tryhard has little talent, then the debate should be winnable even if a tryhard accepts maybe especially if a tryhard accept. If a tryhard is an obstacle to victory that suggests talent or skill. I suspect you are missing the irony in the popular usage and are perhaps just criticizing people for making an effort.
My offering was meant to elicit whether non-MMA heavyweights were included in Pro's consideration. I suppose that will need to be addressed debate-side now. good luck
If what is on offer here is a chance to debate with/vs. the likes of Ragnar & blamonkey without taking a ratings hit, count me in- just tell me which side I'm on
Freed Babylonian slaves fled to Palestine,
escaped Egyptian slaves fled to Palestine,
Jesus sought asylum in Egypt,
the Apostles traveled from India to England to proselytize the new faith.
The biblical God does not build any walls but he tears down a few.
The former is more fact-based while the later is subjective and dependent on the former proving true. Since I don't believe you can prove that any copies of the Columbine tapes still exist, I choose the former.
=>The "sugar in my coffee" is interesting. What that (and the God debate) ultimately comes down to is this: can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?
Your PRO-sugar/ANTI-sugar dichotomy is both inapplicable and revealing. I detect no sweetness to my coffee- there are all kinds of possible explanations for the lack of sweetness but a philosophical objection to sugar ain't one of them.
*******
Wide-eyed Pro-Sugar Guy Emerging from Under the Starbucks Counter: "Dude, the sugar was put in. Can't you taste it? The coffee is so sweet, it's so obvious."
Me: "If you tasted this cup of coffee then I'd like a fresh cup, please"
Wide-eyed Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have an empty sugar packet right here."
Me: "I saw you pull that out of the trash just now"
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have witnesses who are willing to give their life as a testament to the fact that I put Sugar in the coffee."
Me: "Fuck! That is sad....and now I see you are capitalizing the word sugar. Look, should I call the police because what you're describing to me now sounds like some kind of coercion?"
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But again, I have people who are saying that the coffee is sweet."
Me: "People! PLURAL? More than one person has had their lips on this cup of coffee? I...I...think I have to leave now."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Ok. Help me out here. I've shown you evidence that many would consider obvious that would lead one to believe I put sugar in the coffee-- but you refuse to believe it. What sort of evidence do you want to see that would convince you that I put sugar in the coffee?"
Me: (running away from Starbucks as fast as possible)
=>Depends on how you define "religion". While historically, "religion" has meant a belief in a God or gods, newer definitions have added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion?
+1 prior comments Atheism is neither religion nor belief so is easily disproven “best” of either. Atheism is an observation. This coffee has no sugar that I can see or taste or observe. Now maybe my senses are dull or my instruments insufficient but if you want me to believe that you put sugar in this coffee the burden of proof is now yours. This planet has no creator that I can see or taste or observe. If you want me to believe this planet has a creator the burden of proof is now yours. A lack of evidence of something can’t be, by definition, also best at that something.
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro opens with Quine's Ontological Commitments, Con argues (after first forfeit) without evidence that OR may not apply beyond the bounds of the universe and then offers Plato's Argument from Contingency. Pro refutes Plato with the Hume-Edwards principle and ignores OR counter as unsupported. Con forfeits again then denies or misapprehends his use of Plato. Con then argues that if matter was created then matter's creator must be immaterial- non-sequitur defense of Plato or new argument- either way, dismissed. Con never addressed Hume-Edwards and failed to counter OR. Arguments to Pro.
Con to Pro for Con's double forfeits.
Sources to Pro for succinct & relevant use. Con did not even credit Aquinas
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Both sides offered the faintest effort possible, both forfeited at least half the time. Neither side has logged on in weeks. Insufficient fucks given all around.
8
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 forfeited all but first round, never even got around to dissing conservatives. As PF8 would say, "That's poor conduct!"
The Mods will definitely offer your feedback if asked about why they trashed your vote. It is super annoying to get zapped but be bolstered by the fact that everybody gets votes deleted, the more you do the more you get deleted. Even mods get their votes deleted sometimes. Many votes get super-scrutinized for imperfections merely in hope of some tactical improvement (which this debate's history demonstrates fairly ably). I'd encourage you to keep voting until your votes stick- the quality of debate oversight depends heavily on the quantity of voters and we clearly need a bunch more regular voters.
Columbine was in the news again this week and the reason sort of answers your question: there is much obsessive fixation on the event that feeds into harms and potential harms.
After discovering a fairly egregious act of plagiarism in my debate I am looking at more of DarthVader1's debates for evidence of plagiarism. RatMan should be advised that PRO's R1 is entirely cut & pasted from this article:https://www.dailywire.com/news/27439/6-facts-show-gun-control-not-answer-amanda-prestigiacomo
(not to be confused with the Daily Wire's "7 facts" which PRO does cite)
1) You printed the entirety of chapter 17 except for editing out "Chapter 17," which would have given it away.
2) You did not write a thesis or define terms. You did not author a single word. That's not a support to an argument, that is misrepresentation as argument.
3) You did not use quotes or highlights or italics or bold to suggest special text.
4)Essentially, you handed me the job of refuting in R1 an entire chapter of a professionally researched best-selling book without even the benefit of knowing that so that I could investigate Spencer's sources and critics. If you had truly planned to reveal in some later round that every word you wrote was stolen, you would have obviously been subject to the same criticism. So no, I don't believe you intended to credit Spencer in later rounds.
5) cut & pasting some other guy's whole chapter is not a "whoops, I didn't know that wasn't allowed" kind of mistake. If you attended primary school, you learned that this behavior falls somewhere between lying & theft.
You should concede this debate and apologize for shit conduct.
I hadn't heard this term, "tryhard" and when DrF used it the first time in R2 of our BLM debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/960, I honestly thought DrF was just exhorting me to try harder. It wasn't until repetition in R3 that I realized that this was an insult beyond my ken:
1. an underskilled or untalented participant attempting to compensate with sheer effort in order to succeed: We annihilated a whole team of tryhards in their first multiplayer match.
2. a person who participates in a game or other activity with too much enthusiasm, emotion, effort, or commitment: These tryhards need to take a moment, take a breath, and chill out.
3. someone creating a false image to appear more attractive or appealing; a phony; a poser: He’s just a tryhard who thought buying a convertible would help him pick up girls.
I'll plead guilty to all 3 senses of the word so pardon my spaz & thx for the new word & the debate.
and welcome to the site
so you are pro-zoo and you're looking for an anti-zoo debater?
Interesting topic although rather freewheeling with overgeneralization so far. Of course, the Maghreb in its turn would owe much to Europe & Asia. Would the Almohad Caliphate be what it was without Roman colonization, visigothic revitalization, or Byzantine trade? I might argue that the Dark Ages are mostly bullshit, or that the inhabitants of the Barbary (Berber)Coast were definitionally more barbaric than Europeans, whatever the evolution of that word since, or that the Black Plague did more to save Europe than Islamic medicine and trigonometry might ever hope.
Disagree. I’m still trying to puzzle out your thesis. So Con is “Africans ought to have saved Europeans” which sounds worthwhile enough although I can’t tell to what event(s) the instigator refers- the crusades? The moors?
No True Christian uses OMG- that would be taking the lord's name in vain.
No swears or offensive words? I love to swear. We should have a debate about swearing oaths and taking the lords name in vain
Young sir speedy tell us true
Do u still still YEC or did once do?
I’m living these days for one of pinkfreud08’s “that’s poor conduct!”s
Thanks 4 votes, folks
bot indeed. question is, cui bono?
who programmed mindbot & to what purpose?
/in. I need to work on my Ali/Holyfield debate with RM for a bit & then I'll start working on defining terms
Which side am I?
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Full forfeit by PRO
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
100% of PRO's R1 was cut & pasted from Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America." PRO added some transitional sentences in R2 to create the illusion of an original response to CON but actual arguments continued to be robbed from D'Souza. All of PRO's arguments must be discounted due to theft- leaving essentially forfeits for every round.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
CON stole entirely from one source without attribution. PRO's sources were plentiful and quality ranged from good to excellent.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
CON stole his spelling and grammar from a professionally edited manuscript. PRO's spelling & grammar was both excellent and original.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
CON's theft of intellectual property is the least forgivable conduct this voter has seen on this site, even potentially exposing this site to potential (even if very unlikely) legal action. This voter recommends intercession by site moderators to warn CON regarding this theft and also monitor this user for future violation.
yeh, that shows.
yeah. well we can keep discussing in forum. If interest picks up I might still join or we might do a one-on-one version later on. I like the topic & the more I read about it the more it seems like a potentially good idea when implemented right- although I'd still argue that we should kick the Fed subsidies out first before taxing.
You use that word tryhard a lot, in fact it was you that got me to look it up a few weeks ago, but I am increasingly convinced you don't understand the word. The definition is usually something about a person of little to no talent posing as a person of more talent. Your usage consistently indicates something else....below you say this debate is easily won unless a tryhard accepts. If a tryhard has little talent, then the debate should be winnable even if a tryhard accepts maybe especially if a tryhard accept. If a tryhard is an obstacle to victory that suggests talent or skill. I suspect you are missing the irony in the popular usage and are perhaps just criticizing people for making an effort.
My offering was meant to elicit whether non-MMA heavyweights were included in Pro's consideration. I suppose that will need to be addressed debate-side now. good luck
If what is on offer here is a chance to debate with/vs. the likes of Ragnar & blamonkey without taking a ratings hit, count me in- just tell me which side I'm on
Muhammad Ali
=> So he freed slaves and traveled, ok???
disingenuous, at best.
just off the top of my head:
Freed Babylonian slaves fled to Palestine,
escaped Egyptian slaves fled to Palestine,
Jesus sought asylum in Egypt,
the Apostles traveled from India to England to proselytize the new faith.
The biblical God does not build any walls but he tears down a few.
The former is more fact-based while the later is subjective and dependent on the former proving true. Since I don't believe you can prove that any copies of the Columbine tapes still exist, I choose the former.
=>The "sugar in my coffee" is interesting. What that (and the God debate) ultimately comes down to is this: can the person recognize or is able to recognize, the evidence that is there?
Your PRO-sugar/ANTI-sugar dichotomy is both inapplicable and revealing. I detect no sweetness to my coffee- there are all kinds of possible explanations for the lack of sweetness but a philosophical objection to sugar ain't one of them.
*******
Wide-eyed Pro-Sugar Guy Emerging from Under the Starbucks Counter: "Dude, the sugar was put in. Can't you taste it? The coffee is so sweet, it's so obvious."
Me: "If you tasted this cup of coffee then I'd like a fresh cup, please"
Wide-eyed Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have an empty sugar packet right here."
Me: "I saw you pull that out of the trash just now"
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But I have witnesses who are willing to give their life as a testament to the fact that I put Sugar in the coffee."
Me: "Fuck! That is sad....and now I see you are capitalizing the word sugar. Look, should I call the police because what you're describing to me now sounds like some kind of coercion?"
Pro-Sugar Guy: "But again, I have people who are saying that the coffee is sweet."
Me: "People! PLURAL? More than one person has had their lips on this cup of coffee? I...I...think I have to leave now."
Pro-Sugar Guy: "Ok. Help me out here. I've shown you evidence that many would consider obvious that would lead one to believe I put sugar in the coffee-- but you refuse to believe it. What sort of evidence do you want to see that would convince you that I put sugar in the coffee?"
Me: (running away from Starbucks as fast as possible)
=>Depends on how you define "religion". While historically, "religion" has meant a belief in a God or gods, newer definitions have added "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
Can you provide a cite for that? Seem like an oddly free-wheeling definition to me- I ascribe supreme importance to my pursuit of respiration- is breathing therefore my religion?
+1 prior comments Atheism is neither religion nor belief so is easily disproven “best” of either. Atheism is an observation. This coffee has no sugar that I can see or taste or observe. Now maybe my senses are dull or my instruments insufficient but if you want me to believe that you put sugar in this coffee the burden of proof is now yours. This planet has no creator that I can see or taste or observe. If you want me to believe this planet has a creator the burden of proof is now yours. A lack of evidence of something can’t be, by definition, also best at that something.
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:Con(cedes)
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro concedes
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Con quintuple-fofeited, never engaged.
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro opens with Quine's Ontological Commitments, Con argues (after first forfeit) without evidence that OR may not apply beyond the bounds of the universe and then offers Plato's Argument from Contingency. Pro refutes Plato with the Hume-Edwards principle and ignores OR counter as unsupported. Con forfeits again then denies or misapprehends his use of Plato. Con then argues that if matter was created then matter's creator must be immaterial- non-sequitur defense of Plato or new argument- either way, dismissed. Con never addressed Hume-Edwards and failed to counter OR. Arguments to Pro.
Con to Pro for Con's double forfeits.
Sources to Pro for succinct & relevant use. Con did not even credit Aquinas
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Both sides offered the faintest effort possible, both forfeited at least half the time. Neither side has logged on in weeks. Insufficient fucks given all around.
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: Pro forfeited fully in fulfillment of prophesy
8
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 forfeited all but first round, never even got around to dissing conservatives. As PF8 would say, "That's poor conduct!"
I’ve always thought the US missed a great opportunity after WW2 by supporting the creation of Israel rather than inviting these refugees to US.
The Mods will definitely offer your feedback if asked about why they trashed your vote. It is super annoying to get zapped but be bolstered by the fact that everybody gets votes deleted, the more you do the more you get deleted. Even mods get their votes deleted sometimes. Many votes get super-scrutinized for imperfections merely in hope of some tactical improvement (which this debate's history demonstrates fairly ably). I'd encourage you to keep voting until your votes stick- the quality of debate oversight depends heavily on the quantity of voters and we clearly need a bunch more regular voters.
I don’t think you’ve got much of a case but I’d be happy to debate it with you
Columbine was in the news again this week and the reason sort of answers your question: there is much obsessive fixation on the event that feeds into harms and potential harms.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/columbine-high-school-demolition.html
Be advised that most of Pro's R1 argument is plagiarized word for word from Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America"
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dinesh-dsouza-the-secret-history-of-the-democratic-party
We should note that PRO's R1 argument was plagiarized from a public speech by Milo Yiannopoulos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksRB4faMU7o
After discovering a fairly egregious act of plagiarism in my debate I am looking at more of DarthVader1's debates for evidence of plagiarism. RatMan should be advised that PRO's R1 is entirely cut & pasted from this article:https://www.dailywire.com/news/27439/6-facts-show-gun-control-not-answer-amanda-prestigiacomo
(not to be confused with the Daily Wire's "7 facts" which PRO does cite)
1) You printed the entirety of chapter 17 except for editing out "Chapter 17," which would have given it away.
2) You did not write a thesis or define terms. You did not author a single word. That's not a support to an argument, that is misrepresentation as argument.
3) You did not use quotes or highlights or italics or bold to suggest special text.
4)Essentially, you handed me the job of refuting in R1 an entire chapter of a professionally researched best-selling book without even the benefit of knowing that so that I could investigate Spencer's sources and critics. If you had truly planned to reveal in some later round that every word you wrote was stolen, you would have obviously been subject to the same criticism. So no, I don't believe you intended to credit Spencer in later rounds.
5) cut & pasting some other guy's whole chapter is not a "whoops, I didn't know that wasn't allowed" kind of mistake. If you attended primary school, you learned that this behavior falls somewhere between lying & theft.
You should concede this debate and apologize for shit conduct.
I don’t see evidence of JeffCo hiding/cover up. If u instigate a debate along these lines I am likely to accept
Reversion to type both figuratively and literally?
Sure.
/whoosh, I think. Do you have some strong opinions about Vercingetorix? Because I'm a big fan of strong opinions about Vercingetorix.
More so than any other avenger, Black Widow seems to always have a plan.
I am really tempted to take this debate and roleplay one avenger thus:
R1: hulk smash
R2: HULK SMASH!
R3: unh, HUULK SSMAAAAAAAAASH!
I hadn't heard this term, "tryhard" and when DrF used it the first time in R2 of our BLM debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/960, I honestly thought DrF was just exhorting me to try harder. It wasn't until repetition in R3 that I realized that this was an insult beyond my ken:
1. an underskilled or untalented participant attempting to compensate with sheer effort in order to succeed: We annihilated a whole team of tryhards in their first multiplayer match.
2. a person who participates in a game or other activity with too much enthusiasm, emotion, effort, or commitment: These tryhards need to take a moment, take a breath, and chill out.
3. someone creating a false image to appear more attractive or appealing; a phony; a poser: He’s just a tryhard who thought buying a convertible would help him pick up girls.
I'll plead guilty to all 3 senses of the word so pardon my spaz & thx for the new word & the debate.
sorry we missed the chance
https://youtu.be/oBZk6JZwJCU
https://www.conservapedia.com/Mainstream_media
https://policingequity.org/images/pdfs-doc/CPE_SoJ_Race-Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/lightning/
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?utm_term=.9dba44efa1d0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_King
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chicago_torture_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235217301289?via%3Dihub
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128716686343?journalCode=cadc
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2016.1236205?journalCode=rjqy20
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235216300010?via%3Dihub
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Dallas-Police-Shooting-Sniper-Black-Lives-Matter-NAACP-385997131.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toussaint_Romain
http://racialviolenceus.org/Data/tuskegeelynchingstatistics.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344985-poll-57-percent-have-negative-view-of-black-lives-matter-movement
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/27/allen-west/allen-west-more-black-black-murders-six-months-86-/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/morgansimon/2018/11/21/will-the-real-blexit-please-stand-up/#23265a9740e7
sources:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/what-we-believe/
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/what-we-believe/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/poldem.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17205256/gun-violence-us-police-shootings
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-police-brutality-depends-where-you-live-n8816
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2014
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2004-05-24-0405240017-story.html
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/murder-topic-page/murdermain_final
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/police-shootings-not-at-a-record-level/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/reminder-the-fbis-police-homicide-count-is-wrong/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-new-estimate-of-killings-by-police-is-way-higher-and-still-too-low/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-new-estimate-of-killings-by-police-is-way-higher-and-still-too-low/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-11-08/black-lives-matter-activists-indias-discriminated-dalit-learn-tactics-press