The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Police Equipment and Funding

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
spikejaden has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2020 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 259 times Debate No: 123858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Police should have better funding. Although they look big, Mean, And scary when they have their hand-me-downs from the military, They aren't militarized. They actually need better equipment to handle better situations. Some departments couldn't buy tasers, And another had only 1 squad car. All of them quit on the same day. Now, If we funded even already wealthy departments, We would be safer from criminals that say "They'll never find me! ". Listen, Would you want to be arrested because you were framed for a crime? No! If police were funded better, Detectives would have an easier time finding the actual criminals. Now, Let's talk about the parts other than arrests. A lot of times, Police don't even respond to the big bad murder cases or drug cases believe it or not. They spend most of their time on traffic duty and helping the other departments. But, Without money, They wouldn't be able to help anyone at all, They would be stuck doing major murder cases only, Dying quickly because they are underequipped. Now, About less-than-lethal. A lot of departments can't afford less than lethal because it is too expensive. If they could afford it, We would probably cut down the amount of deaths by 10-20%. I think that the police could get this funding from a 1% cut from military budget, And the towns taxpayer dollars. Plus, We could get donations from people around the world and get it popular, Like teamtrees did. In conclusion, Higher police funding could do absolute wonders for the USA.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Post your argument, So I can debate off that please, Thanks!


The primary legitimate responsibility of police is to protect negative rights within a designated geographical area, Usually the same lines are the government"s jurisdiction. Those receiving police services should be the individuals that fund those services. Individuals and police departments can easily work out agreements between funding and service. Private service companies do it daily.

Taxation enforcement:
Taxation, To provide funding, Is the legalized expropriation of money from individuals. This legalization of an unethical act of expropriation requires enforcers. Government has decided to use current police to enforce unethical governmental activity, Which is against the ideas of a legitimate policing. The police agency is in conflict with itself, Is it for protection of individuals or revenue enforcement?

Less than lethal weapons:
Every law regardless of triviality or stated punishment, At the police office enforcement level is "comply or die", Without exception. A person selling untaxed cigarettes will receive the same physical violence as a murderer, Until compliance is reached or death. Less than lethal weapons give politicians an out for oppressive laws because police have more less than lethal options to gain compliance. There is no reason a harmless person should be a victim of governmental violence just because less lethal weapons are used. Less than lethal weapons encourage oppressive governmental action and less funding is beneficial for society. Police should be funded by voluntary payment from those recipients of the service. This will lead to a situation where police are funded at the level desired by the community. An ethical police force take protects negative rights requires very little funding.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 1000lifetimes 2 years ago
I agree that police need better funding, But not for more weapons. I'm not an expert, But I don't know that lack of weapons (particularly where I live - in Canada) are the issue.

Recently, Someone I know had their house broken into while they were out. Their electronics and jewelry were stolen. The perpetrators had essentially broken the glass, Opened the door and waltzed right in. The point is, When the police were contacted - they essentially explained that there's not much they can do, That the insurance companies would reimburse them for the value of the missing items, And that the police recommend installing a security system. That was IT. Apparently, They highly recommended the security system, Because burglars know that insurance companies will reimburse them and within a few months, Their house will be ripe for the picking again (they already know the layout, No dogs etc. ).

When the police throw their hands up and shrug their shoulders at one of the more basic crimes, It's quite disappointing. And I don't think that the latest and greatest tactical vests, Laser sighted weapons and armored vehicles will be the solution.

Money would be better spent on hiring MORE police officers, Or better trained police officers to investigate crimes. I agree, You usually see cops doing menial traffic duty more than you see them in the papers solving big crimes. Police do a difficult, Dangerous job and are seldom fully appreciated or compensated adequately, So I'd rather see money go towards their SALARIES than new weapons.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.