Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

Hello again hawkeye,Prelude First I would like to point out that you have not actually rebutted my arguments, so those ones still stand for the judges to see. Before I officially begin this argument, I want to point an anecdotal experience of mine. A few years back, I was a juvenile delinquent and frequently got in trouble with the police. I saw first hand, the corrupt nature of several police officers, and I was even a victim of police brutality. I once stolen something which wasn't mine and the police caught me and my friends. One of my friends ran for it, the rest of us stayed. The cop that chased my friend and caught him was very pissed off, so he demanded to know where I got this stolen item from. I refused to tell him and asked for my lawyer, which was my right; at which point he beat me in the police car while I was in handcuffs and when I still refused, he tasered me. I agreed to show him where I got it from, then got charged. I wanted to take it to trial, but they dropped the charges. The point is, you say I don't understand, and I do. All my peers hated cops and so did I. I have also met good people who were cops. Point is, who are you to say most are bad and only few are good? I have personal experience with police brutality and corrupt cops but reason tells me that this is not an inherently evil or crooked profession.Anyways, on to the actual argument. We are talking with reason here, and not comparing anecdotes. "My opponent is in a very strong case of deniable facts." My opponent has not said why my facts are deniable. I presented the facts and responded to your initial argument with examples from the law and other sources. The facts can be deniable in that they vary from country to country and even from state to state; but because you were not specific in which legal system or incident you are referring to, I assumed it was a generalized opinion on law enforcement. My facts were fair. Notice how my opponent has no sources to back up his many claims, which I will point out as we go along."Law officers are corrupted and crooked i'm not saying this about all officers there are a few good ones out there but only a few cops." The same can be said about lawyers, bankers, politicians or any other profession that the general public seem to have a negative outlook on. Because there are no hard facts or even statistics my opponent is using, these remain as claims with no evidence. In this case the burden of proof is on you because you have made the positive assertion that "most officers are corrupt and/or crooked, but some are 'good.'" Not much else is needed to be said about this."But a good many of them get away with more crimes then an ordinary citizen." I will use the same argument from above. Argument here is a positive assertion yet there is no evidence at all to back it up."what my opponent is saying makes no absolute sense." Con is trying to discredit my entire argument without actually rebutting anything. "There are a lot of people that can back me up and support my debate that cops should be punished according to state law when they break them."This is a trick statement. Let me explain: A) The logical reasoning behind it is fallacious because it is argumentum ad populum; just because many people can back you up, does not prove it is true or even add any credibility, or act as evidence to the previous positive assertions; of which my opponent has the burden of proof.B) The point he is making here is different from his original argument. He says cops should be punished according to state law when they break them, which actually assumes two things: In these present state of affairs, law enforcement officers do not get punished according to state law when aforementioned law is broken. Law enforcement officers ought to get punished according to state law when aforementioned law is broken. This is of course false and no where does it say that police officers do not get punished by state and/or federal law when any aforementioned law is broken. All police officers are treated as normal citizens before the court of law; innocent until proven guilty and will not be punished without due process. The burden of proof is on my opponent, yet I will still add that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States supports my assertion here. [1] "I Apologize if my opponent dose not understand what is going on in this debate vote for me and lets put a stop to crimes being broken by our own law enforcement." This is close to being an ad hominem argument because my opponent asserts that I do not understand and attempts to discredit my entire argument based on that assertion, without actually offering any rebuttals or arguments with any evidence.Conclusion My opponent has not offered any rebuttals to my previous arguments in round 1 and so they still stand. Most of my opponent's argument is based on faulty reasoning and are arguably emotionally charged, yet superficial. My opponent has also failed on providing any evidence, so even if his logical reasoning was sound and valid, it would still fail because the burden of proof is on him. I explained why this is so, because he is making the positive assertion that Law Enforcement officers are no different than criminals and ought to be treated as such; which is true to the extent that when individual Law Enforcement officers break the law. However my opponent's argument is filled with assumptions and nothing to back these assumptions with. I think you should vote for me because my case is strongly supported with facts and the law itself. Furthermore I also want to put a stop to crimes done by our Law Enforcement, but I also want to put a stop to crimes done by any person under the law. However we must use reason, evidence and rigourous investigation to do so. Hatred makes for a bad Judge in the court of Law, and I prefer Justice over emotionally-fueled hate. I will thank my opponent for an interesting discussion.Source[1] http://www.archives.gov...;