I got that, but i have to debate some fucktard that doesn't understand that the shit about cops they see on TV isn't all of the cops ever,she is some tumblrina that uses emotions to debate which is complete bullshit
>>39924 Then every time she says something, say that. Your argument speaks for itself; people don't understand that in a debate, it's okay to debate the other person's tactics and not their actual arguments.
Here's how it should play out: "Cops should wear cameras so that they don't have free reign to bully anyone and have it be their word against someone else's in court."
"But I don't feel..."
"Your feelings don't matter. Give me evidence as to why this is a bad idea."
If you drill her on that, you'll make her look like an idiot. If you don't, your debate won't go anywhere because you can't argue with her.
remember that in a debate, or any argument piece, its often powerful to address what you believe the strongest counter claims to be. for exmaple, say someone has the argument that body cameras dissaude people from becoming cops, or that it may impact their performance due to have all of their procedures recorded, such as causing hesitation.
In both of these cases you can say that neither claim actualyl is against body cameras, but that they instead highlight difficiencies in the systems of training, and legal procedure. Body cameras in this sense provide clear and usable evidence regardless of the outcome of any situation, and that should an officer hesitate or feel impacted by having their actions recorded, that they should then be further trained until this is a non-issue. Frame body cameras in a constant win-win for both parties.
>>39930 people may also claim that, due to police being civilians, that they are entitled to personal privacy, or even claim that those people that police are 'encountering' whether they be everyday citizens or criminals, are also entitled to privacy. In both cases body cameras are pretty much indefensible in a legal/constituional sense. You'd have to somehow frame them in a security versus freedom sense, but may wish to no use the word "freedom" or "right"
>>39954 That demonstrates that underhanded debating technique is acceptable.
If it's acceptable, and winning is encouraged, then that means underhanded debating technique is encouraged.
So you shouldn't feel even the slightest bit bad about busting out the big guns: trolling, strawmanning, semantic nitpicking, sophistry.
The objective is to look calm and truthy, whilst your opponent looks salty and untruthy. Whether your right or correct is irrelevant. Like in Scrabble, you can out-right lie so long as your opponent won't call you on it.
To see how this works, look at every other thread on this whole entire site.
>>39967 Yes! Politicking! If she's going to whine and throw a tantrum to win, then its time to attack her character or any other wonderful logic fallacy. They are so easy, and just as anon said, you just have to look calm and confident while doing it.. Dont be afraid to interrupt her (calmly, of course) or to make reasonable claims while suggesting that she's either badgering, or painting the argument one way or the other.
Thread replies: 11 Thread images: 1
Thread DB ID: 458934
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.