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

My opponent begins his final round by claiming that I told him to plagiarise. That's beyond absurd. It is evident in my last round that he did nothing more than copy and paste his entire argument. Not only that, but he failed to give proper citations when using the book authors argument for his own. I see no apology from Pro, so it seems that instead of owning up to his error he has decided to blame me for his own plagiarism. This is not highschool debate, this is debate.org where the site rules have precedence over anything else. Trying to claim it's alright to plagiarise because it's your debate is ridiculous and such rules were never put forth by you before the start of this debate, thus they hold no weight now in your last round.I. Paramilitary tactics outdatedPro provides no rebuttal for his mistake of holding Bush responsible when it was, in fact, Clinton - as seen in his own link in Round 3. My opponent first stated it was Reagan who created SWAT, which after being shown as wrong changed it to Bush. Again, that was wrong, and he has provided no explanation for his false claims. The bill in question is the 1997 NDAA act which Pro himself shared: http://txfa.weebly.com... which was signed by Clinton, not Bush. I'll consider that dropped by Pro.Additionally, my opponent misunderstands my position, I never claimed he was "trying to show a difference between SWAT and paramilitary tactics", I showed that they are one in the same. It was Pro who never showed us the difference. This entire time Pro has been claiming they are two different things, but never showed us any difference between them. He's now just reaffirming what I've already shown the audience, and all due to his own misunderstanding of his own position. II. 50 deaths a year from raidsOnce again, my opponent plagiarises from an article written by the same author whose book he copied his last rounds arguments from. http://www.washingtonpost.com...Pro, again, fails to properly cite the author as the one who created these arguments. At this point, I believe it reasonable to conclude that Pro does not understand what plagiarism is, either that or he honestly believes it is alright to do so because it's his debate. This is not how debate.org works, and I only hope that the judges vote accordingly with his continued plagiarism in mind. Furthermore, in response to the 8 plagiarised points from the washington post link which was what he copy and pasted from (and which was authored by the same man who he plagiarised from in the last round) it seems Pro fails to acknowledge that a majority of these drug raids end up in seizures of military grade weaponry which I've previously shown in my last round. I'll consider that line of argumentation dropped. When going up against a force that has military-grade weaponry, it's understandable why police forces would rely on military-grade tactics themselves. III. Free equipment so no hesitation to usePro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument. Therefore I extend all arguments.IV. Not trained to use equipmentThe only response I see from Pro in relation to this line of argumentation is that Shaquile O'Neil has been made an "honorary deputy" and taken on several raids. Pro, again, relied on the source http://readersupportednews.org... which brought me to their homepage - not a direct article which would serve to validate the claim. For the sake of argumentation though, I conducted my own search to see if there was any truth to this claim. What I found was this: http://sports.espn.go.com...In the article, Shaq was sworn in as a reserve officer for the Miami-Dade police officer. It states, " He spent the past year training for the Miami Beach police reserve officer position and can now add the $1 a year salary to his $100 million..." Right off the bat, Pro's claim that he wasn't trained for that position fails to hold any weight, since I am showing empirical evidence that says the contrary, which is that he was indeed trained. In a second article related to his time at the L.A. sheriffs office, it states that, "While playing for the Los Angeles Lakers, O'Neal went through the police academy and became a reserve officer with the L.A. Port Police." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...Not only am I providing direct evidence that contradicts what Pro is attempting to claim, but I'm doing so with sources that direct the audience to actual articles which can serve to validate my position in negating the false, unproven, claims presented by Pro. V. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situationsMy opponent claims, "paramilitary tactics are most commonly used to serve search warrants in drug-related cases." Yet his source for that claim, http://www.economist.com... just brings us to the home page of economist.com - there is no direct article associated with this source. Therefore, I cannot validate the claim due to the lack of evidence and see no reason to view this as anything more than an uninformed opinion. Based on Pro's previous mistakes regarding which President started what, there is a necessary BOP he must achieve and cannot do so with such broken sources. Pro additionally claims that, "state and local SWAT teams were regularly used not only for raids on poker games and gambling operations but also for immigration raids (on both businesses and private homes) and raids on massage parlors, cat houses, and unlicensed strip clubs." He provides evidence for this claim with the following link: http://readersupportednews.org... Once again, Pro provides a broken source which is nothing more than the homepage of a 3rd party news outlet. There is no article attached directly to the link and therefore I have no reason or direct evidence to accept Pro's claim as valid. VI. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasonsPro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument. Therefore I extend all arguments.VII. SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homesMy opponent shared this document as proof that there are between 100-150 homes broken into for drug crimes a day: http://txfa.weebly.com...This is exactly what he did in the last round too. My response was that the document itself has no sources for that claim. It's merely a document on the web which states the claim but in itself is not a source of such a claim. Pro additionally cites this page, http://txfa.weebly.com... as another source for the claim, but after looking at the source I fail to see any direct evidence which would serve to validate his claim. I can claim that it's only 5 homes a day, but without evidence to back up that claim, there's no reason for the audience to accept it as valid. Pro fails to realize this for the 2nd round in a row. I'll therefore consider this dropped by Pro and extend the challenge of him needing to provide direct evidence to validate this claim. In closing, My opponent has made several errors which should rightfully cost him the debate. 1) Since Pro was attempting to debate against the status quo, the Burden of Proof was fully on him. I did not need to present arguments since my rebuttals are already counter-arguments. All I needed to do was stop Pro from affirming the resolution with challenges. He failed to overcome several of those challenges found in the form of rebuttals and therefore failed to affirm his position. 2) Pro dropped several arguments throughout the debate, which is a failure on his part to overcome each of the challenges I present. 3) Pro plagiarised several arguments and failed to acknowledge his own error while continuing to plagiarise in later rounds.