Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

Alright Thanks for clarifying my questions First I'll address some core matters of the activity of debate. I really think you should make the resolution much clearer than this if you intended it this way. It's actually impossible to debate if you decide to completely alter the resolution by adding such things like "oh btw, i meant they should only not be allowed when the person is just verbally refusing, I think it's ok if they're violently refusing. " This makes it impossible for me to debate since you can just suddenly decide you agree with whatever i say and make that your resolution. I am debating the resolution that was posted as this topic, if you'd like to edit it further or add more details i suggest you do so in a different debate. You may not care about the definition of such things as a vehicle, but seriously you should not just blow off my arguments saying that you don't care and it's a tangent. These things lose you rounds in an actual debate, because the definitions of the words in the resolution can be disputed. I think your resolution itself is debatable, but you chose to avoid my arguments by simply altering the resolution and changing it. I'd say this is pretty illegitimate considering you waste my time by changing our debate topic. In other words, you have agreed to my arguments, which clearly contradict the resolution, meaning that the judge should vote con. Alright moving on to answering some things you said. Once again you propose no other viable alternatives besides lifting the person out of the vehicle, or the vehicle. You say that this would be a better alternative to some large jolt of electricity, but you haven't given me any reasons why tasering itself is actually worse than lifting. Lifting also poses the risk of injury of the individual, especially if that individual continues to resist. Tasering on the other hand immediately subdues the individual, lowering the possibility of further injury. Tasering also does not lead to death in the majority of cases, which is why the police use tasers when possible instead of guns obviously. Tasering is also an effective way of deterring further resistance of the police, in other words, further increasing the control the state has over the people (please don't start reading foucalt on me lol,) and reducing the crime rate. Imagine a scenario where a criminal is just forced out of the car by lifting. What's to say he won't just refuse again and again? We need a suitable punishment to show the people that they cannot avoid the authority of the government or justice, otherwise you justify anarchy, which i can also debate you about if you insist, but that seems to be "a tangent, so stop wasting my time :P. " Backup, it will increase the risk of tasering. You have an individual refusing to come out the vehicle and you call for backup. great, now there'll be more cops just wondering how to get the individual out of the vehicle. I don't think your "more the merrier" philosophy applies here. tasering is inevitable in these cases, and your alternatives cannnot solve for the problems you have posed, my impacts outweigh yours, and that's a reason to vote con. You have also completely blown off my evidence about the effectiveness about electrical weapons such as tasers and railguns, saying they're for the navy. i'll take this as saying that you conceed my argument about the effectiveness of tasers. fantastic. Since you are proposing a plan (enstating a piece of legislature to make tasering in your cases illegal,) I believe it is appropriate for me to propose a counterplan, which if proven to be better than the plan, should be a reason to vote con. Counterplan text: The president of the United States should do the plan, avoiding normal means through an executive order. If I can prove that this counterplan solves better of solves for something external of the impacts you have described, that means you prefer the counterplan and I have won the debate. Executive orders boost presidential powers, which are key to solving many issues such as global warming, terror, and trade wars. I can give you many other examples of what it solves, i'll include evidence if you ask, but i get the feeling that you'll just say something like "i don't care about your counterplan, stop wasting my time, etc" Underview: You have seriously impaired my ability to debate with you by altering the resolution. I urge the judge to vote con right here for making this debate unfair and impossible for the con. You have conceded that tasers are effective and your alternative methods fail, I have defeated you on your case, or the substantive part of this debate, which means the judge should vote con. I also have a counterplan which solves for all of case and a net benefit of warming, terrorism, and trade wars. You may think this makes no sense, but it does, considering that you are proposing a plan, which means you advocate the plan, and the I as the con can advocate anything that is not the plan.