genesis01 (PRO)but they have to snipe criminals?
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-09-30 06:32:21
| Speak Round
Mike Hatcher (CON)I believe my opponent is confused about his own position in this debate, for his initial statement "but they have to snipe criminals?" falls on my side of the debate, for that question is implying that police should not carry weapons. He has given no justification for this policy or elaboration at all in which to engage upon, so he has failed to meet his burden in this debate and concedes the win to con side.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-09-30 12:46:31
| Speak Roundgenesis01 (PRO)K
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-05 09:57:46
| Speak RoundMike Hatcher (CON)My opponent has conceded this debate
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-06 09:08:06
| Speak Roundgenesis01 (PRO)I never said I conceded it, trying to fake my forfeit to win?
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-06 10:36:29
| Speak RoundMike Hatcher (CON)Writing "K" gives me nothing to work with, you bring no engagement into any of your debates
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-06 11:31:28
| Speak Roundgenesis01 (PRO)you never posted an argument
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-06 12:57:23
| Speak RoundMike Hatcher (CON)How can I post an argument when I dont even know how you would define this motion, so if my argument is about allowing non-lethal weapons but not allowing lethal weapons, how can I know if this argument is relevant under your interpretation, I can only guess, so there it is my argument, they should not use lethal weapons for criminals can be subdued the same with non-lethal weapons and that should be the only right a police has, they should not have the right to kill someone.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-07 11:35:25
| Speak Roundgenesis01 (PRO)you didn't post anything
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-07 12:14:14
| Speak RoundMike Hatcher (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-10-14 12:15:04
| Speak Round
Judge: admin
Judge: ButterCatx
Judge: Blackflag