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

First of all, may I just point out that pro has not provided a usable model whatsoever. For a legitimate model, pro needs to give examples, and an exact method of how this scheme will work from all aspects. To show what I mean, I'll just refute parts of the model. it happens way too much For this argument to be valid, pro needs to provide proof that this is a reoccurring incident. How much is 'too much'? This is opinionated. What is 'to much' in pro's view may not be to much in another's view. it would only take 300-400$ in gas for a little road trip. Again, pro has not given sufficient detail. His first statement was "this happens way too much", implying that there are innocent people being shot by police all over the globe. He then says interviewing all these policemen would take 'a little road trip' which costs only '$300-400'. These two arguments clearly contradict. If there really are as many deaths around the globe as pro is suggesting (without legitimate proof), the cost of fuel would be AT LEAST AUD$15 000. When pro gives detail about the actual distance of the trip, then we can make an approxiamation of the correct pricing of the journey using sources 1 and 2. For this point I ask pro to provide a scope and the information I have asked. . .. they need to be summoned to answer publicly for what's on the video or be shown in the compilation of cops avoiding the camera interview. I do not understand this sentence fully. I believe what con is trying to say is "police need to participate in the interview". Under what consequences? What if the police avoid the camera interview? Again, sufficient detail is necessary. we should start a crowd funding campaign to do this Again, detail is needed. Who is 'we'? And what kind of funding campaign? How big will the campaign be, and targeting who? Even if there is a fundraiser, it is undoubtful that it will raise the required price of the journey. Gaining sufficient funding will require a long amount of time and effort. It raises the question: is the cause really worth it? i can ask them the tough questions What questions- Who let the dogs out? Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar? For this debate to properly proceed, we need an understandable model to base arguments on. Is there going to be a fundraiser which raises over $10000 so you can ask police "tough questions" followed by a big guy holding a boom mike? This plan is lengthy, costworthy and has no aim specified by pro. we just need a big guy holding the boom mic to back me up. . .. And a video camera. And the adresses of various policemen. And transport. And money for fuel, stop-offs, food. And proof of the police-man's actions. And perhaps a lawyer. And so on. There is much more you need for an expedition like this. One last detail I request from pro is: what is the aim of this trip? Now, my points.1. Economical issuesAs I specified before, a trip like this will require $15 000 MINIMUM. That is excluding food and accommodation, along with other necessities. What pro does not realise here, is that an expensive journey like this would require extensive research and funding. This lengthy process is not worth the cause. Pro has specified that the money will be raised through a campaign. What he has not specified is details about this campaign, including: where, when, how, who. .. .2. What is the aim? So far, pro has only talked about questioning police. He has not sprcified what questions and what is the aim of his questioning. Is he attempting to sue/frame police? Is he trying to bring them to justice? We do not know.3. Small chance of workingNot only has pro hardly specified or given details about his model, he has not explained how this will work. I as con am assuming that he is trying to take them to court. If so, this has a small chance of working. First of all, if the policemen did shoot innocent people, they are most likely in prison. It is against the law to shoot an innocent person, no matter the job. Secondly, after pro has interviewed these police-men, he then has to take them to court. He would need extensive research and evidence to back up his claim, and the police may not admit to being guilty in their interview, showing a waste of money.4. Why just policemen? Why is pro limiting this debate to just policemen, when policemen are not the main cause of innocent murders? Police cause a minority of deaths among people, and most of these police men are locked up already. If pro really had the public's interest in concern, he would spend the money made through fundraising on more important issues, such as using the funds to help police on current issues involving murders. In conclusion, these are my points and rebuttals so far. The points are very brief since I am lacking in knowledge of what the aim of this scheme is. Thank you pro for opening this debate, and see you in round two. 1. . http://www.aip.com.au... 2. . http://www.racq.com.au...