Well, I think police are still necessary because they carry weapons, and have the legal authority to carry weapons. It's necessary that our protectors are able to match or exceed the power of enemies. But then that's why regular citizens should carry weapons–to protect ourselves from the police. Either way, bad guys are getting weapons, so we have to have them too. As long as we have good policemen, we'll be safe. But then that means we as citizens have a responsibility to make sure the police are doing their job right.
Also shuriken, SOMEone's full of himself XD
Mind if I share my opinion?
Doesn't count if I deserve it, XD!
I think that police brutality is definitely a thing. There are plenty of bad cops, but there are even more good ones. I think that it really boils down to racism and prejudices. There should be thorough examination and a psych eval before allowing officers into the field. No matter what people say about the officers, they are generally very kind and helpful people. It's just the bad ones that are getting the news, not the good ones. I know from personal experience that they are amazing people that only want to help you. That's all I have to say.
shuriken, I can't tell if you're 13 or 45 (not a compliment, but I like you anyway)
Good points, Lydia
Hehehehe! I tend to fluctuate!
Hi. I'm back. This does kind of go back to the previous debate.
Hm then here's a new one:
Should nationalism be valued above globalism?
idk what either of them are, to be honest :P
I'm guessing that it is like feminism vs. humanism. But instead with whole nations and…………….y'know.
Nationalism = patriotism and favoring policies that benefit your own nation
Globalism = favoring international policies to benefit the world as a whole, even if you sacrifice making your nation stronger
Merriam Webster says nationalism is: exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
and globalism is: national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence
Globalism is the more important of the two, though many people don't care, because they are to selfish to see that there are people starving and dying.
Yeah, looks like most people are saying globalism. I think it really depends, though. Usually the best way to see which one we value more is to examine the two in conflict (I'm a debater lololol I did it high school). So, one conflict would be terrorism. Back a few years ago, Obama labeled seven countries as "at risk" (or something), and they were all majority Muslim countries. Immigration was made more tough for them. In that case, Obama (and Trump, too, but I'm not sure if the same restrictions are in place that he announced before, they probably are) valued nationalism over globalism. Then in other cases, companies are told to make greener policies. That's globalism valued over nationalism, because they care about the planet more than making extra money.
I'm not really sure how many times nationalism should be valued above globalism though. We make policies for both reasons. Can anyone think of other examples…?
