someone should go around video interviewing cops who shot calm, unarmed people (and were filmed)

Hello again. I'll jump straight into my rebuttal.if i need to provide proof that there are too many killing of unarmed, unthreatening civilians by law enforcement, i worry for this debate. it's such a simple, basic fact that there are tons of videos online of cops shooting these people, but no videos of the cops explaining their actions or apologizing. It doesn't matter whether pro "worries for this debate". As part of your job of proving your case, you must provide proof of your arguments. I do not see any proof of "too many" murders by police. Therefore you have not backed up your argument. Also, you say "tons of videos online of cops shooting these people", but where is the proof of this? Pro, in this incident, hasn't even provided links to such videos. So again, pro has not backed up his argument. And on a side-note, it would make it a lot easier to debate this if pro used numerical terms instead of hyperbole such as "tons" or "too many".let me establish that i am not interested in winning a debate - i think it's silly to debate to win points. i find learning and truth much more appealing.Then may I ask, why are you on a site where people vote for winners of debates?nothing i said is "implying that there are innocent people being shot by police all over the globe."Again, I am faced with a contradiction. Pro keeps mentioning the "tons of innocents getting shot" and "it happens way to much", and then he fails to not only set a scope for this debate, but claims he will only take a small road trip. If he does claim that, then what is the point? Making a small road trip may not even encounter one of these policemen, when there are "tons" (as pro keeps suggesting without proof). He is talking up a big problem, and then only making a half-hearted effort to fix it. If pro is to set up a model like this, "a small road trip", it raises some questions. How small is small? What country/place are we looking at for the setting of this road trip? And why only limit the road trip to a small one when there are supposedly "tons" of policemen out there needing to be brought to justice (as pro keeps stressing)? These details are vital to pro's model.This is a half-hearted way to attempt to fix a problem that isn't there, as I will come back to later on.maybe this is partly my fault for having a good idea and asking others to find problems with it on a site where people are trying to make debate into a game rather than a method of truth seeking.Don't put this on DDO. If you really want me to just accept your arguments and not find faults in them, don't put them on a debating website. Full stop.i don't understand how you don't understand my sentence or can ask "What if the police avoid the camera interview?" - when the answer is at the end of my sentence that you quoted - i.e. they will "be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview" when they hide their face on the way to their home, etc. I don't understand this statement either. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think you're trying to say that there will be a "compilation of cops hiding their faces" video? If this is the case, cops hiding their faces do not count as evidence in a court. If you present that video before a judge, he will not just casually say "well, Fred here is hiding his face, so he must have murdered Freda!" No. It does not work like this. Pro has a strange image of the way evidence works. ...does not need to be specified as 500 or 5000 or even 50,000$ as all are equally worth spending on such an important film.Where do you draw the line? $50 000 is an unnecessarily HUGE amount of money for a tape of perhaps one police man "hiding his face". The chances are minute that pro will succeed in getting an apology or confession out of these police that pro is targeting. And again, there is a contradiction. Pro, at the start of the debate, metions it will cost $300-$400 on this road trip. Now he is suggesting $50 000. I ask that pro gets his model organised before he proceeds.if this debate is going to proceed, you need to explain to me how i have not specified an aim. In pro's first argument, he did not mention once the aim of his scheme. He just suggested the idea of filming guilty police without specifying why he would be doing such a thing. He did not say anything about bringing them to justice. Therefore, all I could do was ask for an aim to be specified.the fact that con needs more information to go on tells me that he does not disagree with the basis of my argument. ???I needed more information so I could have a substantial case to disagree with in the first place.i was hoping to find a real police apologist or someone who could tell me about similar documentaries that are already being done, rather than someone to find problems where there are none.I was hoping for an opponent who didn't tell me what to argue.Also, there is such a documentary. It is the news.the aim of this trip, which should be clear, is to bring light to the issue which i described."Bringing light to the issue" is a sad aim for such a complicated process. Interviewing these policemen about their past on a "road trip" that costs $50 000 is a rocky process for such a small aim. So, just to clarify, the aim of this whole scheme and fund-raising is to make people aware of this issue?15,000$ based on a silly inference is a waste of time arguing against.Yes, you are right. You said you needed $50 000 earlier. $15 000 is far too low.the aim is for them to answer publicly for their crimesAgain, another contradiction. Pro has stated before that the aim was to "shed light on the issue". Now it has changed again to as stated above.what a crazy assumption, that i am trying to take them to court - i have said nothing that would lead anyone to believe that. i said they need to "answer publicly" for their actions.Then it is a crazy idea. It would be like making a serial killer confess under a camera, then not use that evidence to bring the killer to justice.most of the cops are locked up in Oz maybe, but again - welcome to america.We [Australians] do not routinely send people out with cameras filming police. We have these policemen in prison. Doesn't that tell you that filming policement is not the way to go about this?Now, my points (expansion):1. Economical issuesFirst of all, this process pro is suggesting is either unnecessarily expensive, or pointless. To clarify what I mean: to make this trip thorough, pro is suggesting the costs come to $50 000. This money can be used in better ways. It can be donated to the police or criminal investigation unit to help catch and bring to justice more criminals. The investgation unit would be a lot more thorough in catching criminals through their investigations then pro would be with a camera trying to film policemen hiding their faces. Then he suggests $400. This would make the trip drastically cheaper, but would only get him approximately 500km, since much of the money would have to be spent on food and accommodation. 500km would only encounter perhaps not even one policeman, and even if this policeman is found, the chances are minute that he will even suggest admitting to his past.2. Small chance of workingAs I stated before, the chances of a police officer confessing to his actions are minute. And, as I said before, he needs extensive evidence to back his claims. He cannot turn up at one of their doors and expect them to let him in, let alone a confession. The chances of this working are so small it is not even worth executing the plan. 3. Poor idea to fix an unproven problemIf pro was really in need of fixing this problem, filming policemen is a weak way of attacking the issue. With $50000, pro could donate it to investigational forces who will focus on current criminals. Also, pro has not even proven that there are criminal policemen in the first place. He has not provided research to prove there are videos of such incidents.I am out of characters. Thanks pro.