Resolved: We must remove paramilitary tatics/military weapons from U.S. police forces

I will just attack what my opponent said his first argument While I understand the protesters were peaceful, the looters were not. The police force focused their energy on the wrong battle. . This was mainly because this form of weaponry is new to them. But the town looks like a war zone because of the looters. Police tear gas cannot tear stores apart. Response to his first argument: He argues that police had a right to use marine slandered weaponry and justified it by saying its new and they needed it. First of all if they have no training no right to use it, second of all the weaponry just increased the tension in the area and caused more things to escalate even if you watched the news of the event the police looked terrifying. I swear if I didn't know what the event was I would think some sort of New order crap was going on. His second argument: While police may be hated, they are necessary. I agree the shootings of the innocent black men were wrong, and bound by racism, but the police had to step it up to deal with looters. I'll note that when a police car pulls you over, do you feel worried, or protected? Probably worried, because your about to get a ticket of some sort. Whether he has on camouflage of his blues, it's not a fun situation. I'd also like to note that while I do not support the death penalty, It is protected under the 8th amendment. Response: my opponent is clearly confused I bought up a static of deaths per year and he thinks its from the Ferguson event but it's not it's 50 deaths from many events including one I mentioned in my last speech. When a guy got shot 6 times by a cop with paramilitary equipment even after the guy put his gun down like the cop told him to. He brings up a death penalty argument again misunderstanding what I said. What I meant by 8th amendment being violated was that if someone committed a non-violent crime they deserve a non-violent punishment not death. He brings up a police car worried thing I guess he is responding to my argument talking about the resentment people feel for security. That was my fault I meant to type paramilitary tactics. People hate military tactics and the fact that people die from them will increase this hate. What I was saying (which my opponent got confused on) is that since people hate this equipment and hate it even more when people die from it no reason to have it. We want people to feel pride, respect, and admiration toward cops not resentment or fear. So yeah clearly my opponent didn't attack my first point cause he was confused on the things I just addressed. My opponents 3rd argument :I'd argue that weapons used in drug searches do protect us. They keep our streets clean, and put the bad people who might hurt us away. Response: That was his justification for 50 deaths from the raids per year. What he fails to realize is that non-violent drug crimes can be dealt with regular police tactics. Also as I said the only reason paramilitary tactics were made was because Reagan needed them to solve drug crimes since back then people who committed drug crimes back then had dangerous weapons that military tactics couldn't deal with. Now obviously they don't, an example of this is of course the guy I mentioned who only had a pistol and when the cop told him to put it down the cop still shot him 6 times using paramilitary tactics. Again just a reminder to consider when voting this military grade weaponry is mostly used for drug crimes as sources like the Washington post, fox news, and the blaze clearly show. his 4th argument/point: I'll agree that right now, the weapons might be abused. With proper regulations from the state, and proper training, the police force could be turned into something good for all. Response: what he has to understand is that this equipment has regulations and obviously they don't work well also I don't see how the local community could provide proper training to regular cops on how to use anti-land mine vehicles and super heavy weaponry. Since the equipment is free the community just stores it so training will not happen and it hasn't happened even though this equipment has been out for a decent amount of time now. His next point Again, this would go back to proper training and discipline. Those types of people shouldn't be allowed on the force, whether they carry a pistol or an M-16. There exist good cops, ones that wish to help America. That is the proper cop that deserves some up grades. Response: This was his response to my training argument. He responds to the fact that they get no training by saying "there are some good cops" there is a good everything but my main argument overall isn't the no training. That is just a side argument the main argument my opponent is missing is that this equipment isn't needed. Again at least 98% of the time this equipment is used for drug crimes again I put a number earlier about 100-150 times day. No military equipment is needed for a non-violent drug crime again it was needed in the past now it is outdated and isn't. his next argument which is against my argument showing how most military tactics are used for drug crimes: Pistols are only used for drug crimes? Someone better tell every cop, ever. Tear gas has been used countless times in American history, and not all just in drug raids. http://www.usatoday.com...... Response: Again he is confused on a argument I state. I never said tear gas at all in my speech I don't see what he is trying to get here at all so just drop this argument. His next argument trying to claim they receive training :. Once again, the police must be trained and discipline before they carry military grade weapons. They don't right now, Response: He is just agreeing with me in a way, if you read his argument as you can see training is a option and he even admitted they don't receive training right now. So yes he conceded that they don't get training cause its true. I agree with my opponent that yes paramilitary tactics should be used for other things but what you must understand is that it was put in place by Reagan for drug crimes so that will never change. It could maybe 20 years from now but for now it will never change so that argument is invalid. His next argument about training IT IS POSSIBLE TO RESTRICT WEAPONS IN THE POLICE FORCE. Response: Since the equipment is free you have to understand training isn't a requirement. Until my opponent proves that training actually could happen and is being considered this argument falls. His next argument is that only a few Americans are mad about paramilitary tactics. A survey conducted on the blaze showed 90% disapprove also if you look at many opinions on this on debate.org a lot disapprove. Also this topic is kinda like patriot act few know about it but a lot disapprove of it, same can be applied with paramilitary tactics most of the few who know hate it. Conclusion: THe only argument my opponent actually had that you guys who vote might consider is training but even if you were to buy that argument that I hit on you have to understand that paramilitary tactics will continue to be used for drug crimes regardless of training or not. Even if you believe he could somehow put a policy to persuade a local community with free equipment to waste money on training I still win. 1. as I pointed out this equipment is used 98% of the time for non-violent drug crimes. And as I pointed out it was implemented by Reagan because people who committed drug crimes used to be heavily armed which is why it is still used for that. I still win in proving that you don't need heavy weapons for drug crimes which is all I needed to prove since it is used 98% of the time on that, 100-150 houses a day broken into for non-violent drug crimes. 2. 50 American deaths a year from the raids provided by bureau of statistics 3. violating 8th amendment 4. he hasn't attacked weapons being used in wrong situations at all.