Police Rage Debate

The central arguments of the debate included the definition of rage and respectability politics, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and the role rage plays into the police shootings. The argument of the definition of rage and respectability politics continued throughout the entirety of the debate. The opposition described it as “a revealing and distinct view…. to demonstrate compatibility” while the proposition defined it as ….. Overall, they found a commonality in that they both included marginalized groups within their definition. As the argument continued, the opposition expanded the argument using the definition to include a speech given by Bill Cosby saying that the community should change how they look and act. The opposition provided a statement

The opposition clapped back with Martin Luther King wasn’t viewed as the leader of civil rights until after the fact. The opposition brought up the example of Rosa Parks as an example of peaceful statement that lead to a bus boycott and the proposition said that she was respectful that she did not respond with rage instead with calmness. As the debate went on arguments around specific examples of police brutality that were originally brought up got dropped. I thought that those arguments would’ve been really beneficial to either side, but also I thought the examples they used were greatly able to demonstrate the points and be used to prove a certain point on both

Both sides were continuously drawing from both Aristotle’s rhetoric and Brittany Cooper’s article. The proposition used the quote “Anger is a perfectly reasonable response. So is rage” from the article by Brittney Cooper to demonstrate the point that Martin Luther King did not use rage instead it was channeled into a constructive response. This was an important draw because they were able to continue the example of Martin Luther King and also create a connection between rage and anger without explicitly saying it. I didn’t quite catch the exact quote the opposition used from Aristotle’s rhetoric, but it validated the idea of emotional persuasion and then connected it to how respectability politics is unrealistic because we as people are built off of emotion. in order to prove their point on the relation between respectability politics and rage.

5.

Overall, I thought all debaters did an excellent job, there were a couple standout debaters such as Livy, Mary, and Yassim. They all were so good at defending their points and their speaking ability was concise and thought out. The person that persuaded my vote was Yassim because I just thought she spoke with such power and all of her points where clear, they were spoken with emotion and intellect. She ultimately persuaded my