Debate analysis

We had two good debates today. There was obviously a good deal of thought and research that went into them. Here are some points that you could take up if you're going to write your essay about tasers. I've tried to focus on how to counter particular arguments. There are also tactical pointers for people in future debates.

Debate 1: For team

1. tasers are "given" to police forces:
   Taser is a company there to make money. They charge as much as they can for their weapons. Police forces have to pay for them by using tax money.
2. many tasers are used therefore they are useful:
   Many McDonald's hamburgers are sold, but that doesn't make them healthy.
3. acknowledged that tasers can be dangerous, but...:
   This was an effective technique that took the wind out of the other team's sails.
4. largest independent study to date shows...:
   This is very specific and powerful. In general, new studies are better than old, large is better than small, and independent is better than company funded.
5. Not an alternative to guns: an alternative to batons & pepper spray:
   This argument reframes the debate. It makes tasers look less dangerous and could catch the other team unprepared. It On the other hand, it could be seen as a bit dishonest because when the police have been asking for tasers, they've specifically argued that they would be an alternative to guns.
6. Police can't help it if the person has a preexisting condition that makes them more susceptible to tasers:
   The law doesn't allow this argument in an assault. That is, if I punch somebody with force that wouldn't kill a normal person, but this person has a thin skull and I kill them, I'm on the hook for their death.

Debate 1: against team

1. studies show:
   This is too vague. Which study? How big was it? When? Who did it?
2. Compared number of firearms deaths with # of taser deaths (similar numbers):
   Brings some perspective and challenges the idea that tasers are safer than guns. In other words, a gun may kill 50% of the times (I'm just making up the numbers) and a taser only 3%, but if tasers are used 20 times more often than guns, then they'll kill just as many people.
   
3. Police are untrained. Police can be "blinded" to potential harm:
   This reframes the debate away from the technical side of tasers to the messy personal side of human nature, something that the for side will have more trouble addressing. It also brings in an emotional element: It's not just that the police "don't realize"; they're actually "blinded" by the taser.
4. The Polish man in Vancouver "didn't even speak English":
   More emotion here. Emotion can be powerful in an argument, but you have to be careful not to be dishonest in its use.

Debate 2: for team

1. Many law enforcement officers were tested:
   Easily countered by saying that these people are some of our fittest people. What happens when used on average people?
2. Safe when used properly (Tasers don't kill people. People kill people):
   But there's no guarantee they will be used safely. This is not just a debate about tasers, but about ALL police having them. Don't leave police out of the equation.
   
3. Used only 60 times a year & saved 4000 lives:
   The numbers look impressive, but the math doesn't work. Tasers have been around for 9 years. 60 times 9 is only 540. How did this save 4000 lives?
4. If somebody were trying to harm me, I'd use a taser:
   But there's lots of evidence that tasers are used to get compliance rather than to avoid harm.
5. Alternative to baton, not guns (see above)

Debate 2: against team

1. Used narrative about Polish man in Vancouver.
   Narrative went on too long and drifted off course. Other team could say it's not representative.
2. After the extended example, just switched approaches:
   You need to tell people the point of the example: so what?
   
3. Used a lot of emotion (see above)
4. A bit flat in delivery:
   If you show some passion, you'll seem more believable.
5. Repeated own point about epileptics:
   When you repeat yourself it looks like you don't have enough arguments.