- Position1 of 3›
- Donald Trump has the better approach to Policing
Trump is tough on criminals. “When you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head...?. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”
The argument
Donald Trump views the lack of police force to halt protests that have turned violent in American cities as a willful surrender on the part of governors and mayors. He views this lack of action as weakness and has very publically voiced his opposition to this inaction on the part of local government, encouraging them directly to react forcefully against looting and destruction of property. His encouragement has included calls for tracking, arresting, and imprisoning protestors for up to 10 years.Trump believes that anyone, police or civilian, who takes a strong, demonstrated stance against those involved in current protests are doing their part to help bring law and order back to the country. His stance on quelling protests comes from a desire for peace across the country, and he has the support of many American citizens on this topic.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Donald Trump assumes all protestors are causing violence, despite evidence to the contrary. Not only is this rhetoric hostile towards law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly, but it is also highly destructive towards country unity as it appears to encourage police brutality against peaceful protestors which is precisely the reason why people are protesting to begin with.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise reports how one person characterises the conduct of state and local officials, which describes a view rather than supplying a reason to hold it. [Rejecting P2] Calls for forceful response and long sentences describe a stance, not its results, and the argument offers nothing on whether that approach reduced disorder anywhere it was urged. [Rejecting P3] That many citizens agree measures popularity rather than merit. The counter-argument identifies the step the premises skip: the stance treats all protesters as one group, placing lawful assembly and looting in the same category, and on that reading encourages precisely the police conduct the protests were about.