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

I. Paramilitary tactics outdatedRight off the bat my opponent admits that his claim was wrong. I'm glad he was able to recognize this, but he continues to make claims which are backed by no evidence or sources whatsoever. He now claims it wasn't Reagan, but instead Bush. Considering there are two Bush presidents, I must ask Pro which one he is even talking about, because at this point neither I nor the audience know since Pro failed to provide proper clarification. Furthermore, I pointed out in the last round how Pro has provided no evidence that they are used on drug crimes 100-150 times a day, nor did he ever cite sources to verify this claim earlier or now. I'm still waiting for proof to be presented. Who made/created it matters a great deal since Pro doesn't even know what he is talking about. Earlier he tried to state it was Reagan and I showed that he was wrong. Now he tries to say it was President Bush without stating which one. What matters is that Pro continues making false claims backed by no evidence. I'd also like Pro to show the difference between SWAT and Paramilitary tactics since he is arguing that there is a difference yet fails to show any difference. To sum up Pro's opening: he made more baseless claims, acknowledged that his first claims were incorrect, and now fails to, again, provide any evidence for every claim he's made thus far. I. a. In response to point 1 by Pro.First off, the first link Pro shared brought me to an empty page. So there is no evidence that his opening line in this section is even valid - for all I know, and from past experience with Pro, this is just another baseless claim backed by nothing. Secondly, he still fails to show the difference between "paramilitary" tactics and "SWAT" tactics. From what I can tell in the 2nd link shared, the NDAA was passed by President Clinton... further proof my opponent has no idea what he is talking about. It was also passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate before being signed by Pres. Clinton. Lastly, the link stated that: currently SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homes an average of 100-150 times each day to enforce laws against predominantly non-violent crimes. Not once did they cite a source for verification. Pro is merely copying whatever it says without questioning the validity of the claim or providing proof for such a statistic. I. b. In response to point 2 by Pro.The main issue with quoting statistics from just one source is that there is no way to verify that the source isn't biased or incorrect. We have to remember, the police don't know what is waiting for them on the other side of that door. Drug dealers, more often than not, have weapons to protect both their homes and drugs or product. To them, the police is the #1 enemy and threat. There are countless cases where drug busts result in weapons being found:1) In a recent drug bust in Harris County, TX they found "A variety of shotguns, handguns and an AR-15 with a full 30-round clip and a military-grade night scope." http://www.chron.com... 2) In Dekalb County, Alabama, three busts led to the discovery of an assault rifle and 9mm handgun.http://www.al.com...3) In Corpus Christi, a bust led to the discovery of 30 guns ranging from handguns to military-style weapons, including a military-grade AR-15, and a shotgun with a silencer on it. http://www.caller.com...My opponent must consider that when faced against the unknown elements behind every door, it is wise to take appropriate measures to ensure safety. In each of these cases, the officers tasked with the drug busts have found military-grade weapons. Is it really that hard to see why military gear and tactics are necessary to protect officers from "military-grade weapons"? I think not. They are merely protecting themselves using the same type of gear that modern drug-dealers are working with, that of the military-grade. II. 50 deaths a year from raidsMy opponent plagiarised this entire section! He literally copy and pasted from his source! Furthermore, the exact same wording can be found on several other sources after a simply Google search. C/P his entire argument into a Google search... literally the entire first page of results has exact word-for-word links. I'm sorry, but am I debating an author named Radley Balko, or am I debating Pro? This is a horrendous betrayal of conduct, and I ask the audience to please vote accordingly when considering his blatant plagiarism. Unless Pro can manage to make his own arguments, I see no reason for providing a rebuttal to this section. On Debate.org, we are not allowed to directly plagiarise someone elses arguments. Proof of his plagiarism:1) http://www.cato.org...2) http://www.amazon.com...3) http://markstoval.wordpress.com...4) http://signpostsofthetimes.blogspot.com...His entire argument comes from an excerpt of the Book- Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in AmericaIII. 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 equipmentPro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument. Therefore I extend all arguments.V. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situationsI think the closest point he made relating this line of argumentation was his next response after the plagiarism titled, "More proof that equipment is misused daily." Again, he plagiarised the entire article. More so, this is not proof that "it is misused daily" - it's merely one case and the investigation isn't even complete yet. Furthermore, the last part about "perhaps 50,000 a year" is nothing more than baseless conjecture. My opponent continues to rely on unproven claims. V. a. College shootingsPro claims I don't show what guns were used in the shootings, but clearly in the article I utilized last round one can see the specific cases highlighted with hyperlinks. For instance, in the Santa Monica story highlighted by the article, the hyperlink brings you to the full-story where it is shown that an AR-15 among additional rifles and handguns were used. Furthermore, Pro fails to understand that it isn't my burden to show that these tactics are necessary, but rather, it is his burden to show that they weren't. He has just committed the fallacy known as Burden of Proof [1] where he wrongly places the burden on the person who isn't affirming the resolution. I don't have to show anything, but if Pro fails to show why they aren't needed, then he fails to maintain his BOP. So far, he hasn't done so. He just repeats that "regular police could handle it" without showing HOW they could handle it.[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...VI. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasonsPro hasn't once showed how this equipment is "abused"! And what is wrong with towns wanting such equipment for "higher ratings on security"? Pro hasn't once shown how a desire to be protected with the latest gear is bad. He's just making baseless assumptions once more. In closing, Pro has continued to misunderstand his own information, failed to provide clarity in sections that call for it, failed to provide valid evidence, plagiarised, and dropped multiple arguments. I ask that he respond to the dropped arguments, apologizes for his plagiarism, and produce valid evidence which can be verified for accuracy while also correcting his misinformation once again. At this point, the resolution stands negated.