CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
5
Yes, because... No, because...
Debate Score:8
Arguments:10
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because... (2)
 
 No, because... (3)

Debate Creator

GenericName(3430) pic



The Double Standard of Civil Unrest and Police Responses

As we have seen, civil unrest has been met with extreme force when the topics being protested are racial in nature.  You may think that extreme force is justified based on extreme conditions, you might not.  But after the Bundy Ranch debacle brought the Sovereign Citizen movement to the political forefront, we saw none of that same reaction, despite the people in question being heavily armed and having said themselves that they had no problem killing government officials.  Now the movement is back in Oregon with the Hammond family, who is being rallied around by the Bundy family who has threatened "serious civil unrest".

Do you believe there is a double standard at play here or no, and why?

Yes, because...

Side Score: 3
VS.

No, because...

Side Score: 5
No arguments found. Add one!
3 points

No

Comparisons of Bundy to violent protestors, such as in Baltimore, or Ferguson, or NY city, are invalid.

Bundy was not a violent rioter bent on destroying private and public property. He did not march down the street chanting "Death To Cops".

He was not infiltrated by anarchists calling for destruction and looting.

Side: No, because...
1 point

Comparisons of Bundy to violent protestors, such as in Baltimore, or Ferguson, or NY city, are invalid.

Singling out the violent protesters is invalid as well. I am referring to the entirety of the protests, which were met (before the violence) with cops pointing guns at their faces. You yourself have pointed out that those who did what you are saying were infiltrators, so why not address the actual protesters themselves (or at least the majority of them) as opposed to singling out a minority for a borderline straw man comparison?

Edit: One could also look at the way cops treat racial minorities with something as small as a replica gun (they shoot them) whilst being completely fine letting heavily armed individuals (who have said they would be fine shooting government officials) go.

How is there not a double standard there?

Side: Yes, because...
daver(1771) Clarified
3 points

1) When Cops are armed while monitoring protests, they are there for the protection of the peace. Would you have them stand there passing out flowers?

2) Infiltrators are there to instigate violence and looting. The rioters and looters are the pawns, the cops are there to keep the piece. Not really that complex.

3) The cop who shoot the kid while brandishing a toy gun, has been cleared by a grand jury. Do you understand that case better than they do?

Side: Yes, because...
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

I'm going to go ahead and show you this update:

http://www.wweek.com/2016/01/02/militia-group-takes-over-federal-building-in-eastern-oregon-because-the-lord-was-not-pleased/

Let's be honest: If this was a lone black man, he would be dead. If this was bunch of black protesters, they would have been tear gassed. Police responses to Right-Wing protest groups is nothing like it is for less armed black protesters, or lone black citizens (including children and middle aged women), even when they explicitly say they are looking to start a fight.

Side: Yes, because...