Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

Okay so time to do a little jumping around. I'm just going to go down the list of voters.--First, extend the Eyre evidence. Eyre makes the argument that court rulings have shown that police have zero obligation to help people. This means that, according to Eyre, if we reduce the amount of protection that QI gives to police officers, then we'll see an increase in bystander behavior from police officers during events of crime, meaning that cops will allow more crime to occur. This turns the aff - he's trying to fix problems by improving the perception of police officers, but Eyre will lead to a drastic worsening of police perception, meaning he makes the problems outlined within his own case worse. Not to mention that this just means more crime is going to happen, which sucks however you wanna look at it.Hayd 100% concedes this argument in the last round. He gave a brief, not even close to sufficient response in the 3rd round then never touched on it in the last one. Eyre is damning for three reasons:1) It means he doesn't have any solvency for the problems he claims to be fixing.2) It means he makes the problems he claims to be fixing worse.3) The CP is the only thing that fixes the problems within Eyre because the CP doesn't reduce QI. This means negating is the only way to avoid the harms coming from Eyre. Hayd dropped it in his last round. Clear offense against the Aff and is more than sufficient to vote negative off of. Game over, you vote neg here.But, even if you don't like that argument:----Extend the CP. Implimenting civilian oversight in reviews of QI fixes the problems associated with the aff without actually reducing QI, meaning that it also fixes the harms I listed against the aff. Hayd tries to argue that this is majority rule which is bad because I'm replacing the judge with another "jury".Again, this isn't majority rule. Cross apply the first respones I made against this last round that he seems to have ignored. The CP doesn't replace the judge, all the CP does is instead of using internal police investigations to investigate necessary information for QI claims to instead use an independent board of civilians to investigate the matters. No where in anything that I read does it ever talk about replacing the judge with a jury. Not my fault that Hayd doesn't want to read.But even if you do buy that this is "majority rule" for some reason, extend my response that majority rule is literally what util is going for by going for the most amount of beneficial impacts as possible - this necessarily means that we say yes to the majority and no to the minority. Hayd's response to this makes no sense whatsoever. His response is the below paragraph:"Minority rights is satisfactory under utilitarianism because conscientiously violating rights of the minority in favor of the majority leads to a slippery slope of tyranny. Just as the minority rights of the Jewish were violated in favor of the majority rule of the Germans in Nazi Germany, allowing it leads to a slippery slope of gratuitous suffering. This is why under utilitarianism minority rights are important."First - this is literally him defining utilitarianism as "not utilitarianism". Util is concerned with the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, which necessarily f*cks over the minorities.Second - the entire argument is that "util would respect minorities because not respecting minorities means we become nazi germany so we wouldn't become nazi germany." a) no where in here is there any warrant for why util doesn't bite into this slippery slope, and b) there's still no warrant in here for why util respects the rights of minorities - all he does is he says they do without actually explaining how or why.Third - even if he is right there, you still prefer the CP because the current status quo of the judicial system is the biggest middle finger to minorities of all time. The CP is a step away from the squo in how the court operates, meaning that if we really are concerned with the minorities until util then you negate off of the CP. There's zero response to this argument from Hayd last round.No other responses against the CP were ever given. This means that the CP is cleanly extended out. Easy place to negate. But even if you don't want to buy the CP:----Extend Schwartz. Since Hayd seems to still not understand what it's saying, despite me summarizing it multiple times in really plain words up to this point, I'll make it super clear again:What Schwartz is saying is that even if the aff were true and we limited QI, municipalities just indemnify officers anyway. Indemnification is where whenever there are legal fees levied against a police officer because of a civil suit or something similar, the municipality covers the bill instead, meaning that the officer doesn't receive any kind of punishment. If officers aren't being punished for doing really bad things and violating the rights of citizens, then there's no reason for them to change how they're acting - even if we're putting them in trials and not giving them QI protection, they're still not facing any of the reprocussions of their actions because the municipalities take the hit for them. This means that even if we do things exactly how Hayd wants it to the letter, there's still not going to be any kind of perception shift of the police force beacuse officers aren't going to have any reason to change how they act - they're not being punished even with less QI protecting them, so why change how they work?This means that because Schwartz is true, even if Hayd's case is 100% right, he's not going to actually be causing any kind of perception shift, which means he doesn't actually fix anything that he says he fixes. This means that it is physically impossible for him to affirm the resolution because he has zero offense that isn't related to a perception shift. What Schwartz does is severs his ability to solve for the harms he's wanting to solve for, which means that there's zero impact to any of the aff's arguments. I'm the only one who has any kind of risk of offense, even if you don't like the argument. Schwartz means that Hayd has zero chance of having any kind of offense. If you really need to go this far down to find a voter, this is sufficient to negate - I'm the only one with offense back towards the framework established, which means that I'm the only one actually doing anything in the round.-----So this debate breaks down really simply. The CP stands and solves for the harms presented by both sides. Hayd doesn't solve for anything. Hayd actually makes the problems he's trying to fix worse. Easy neg vote.