Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras

"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: "Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras." And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: "So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is "right" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself." Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. "Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government." I did not. Here is exact quote. " The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair." "What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree." It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. "The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished." Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. "Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone." They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. "Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace." Which is still a group... thus my point stands. " It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong." FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. "My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case." I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. "1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system." It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as "lower racial discrimination". Whether or not their classification of what counts as "lower racial discrimination" is objectively correct, is unknown. "2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force." And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.