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

Alright, it seems as if we let these arguments grow way to long, so lets try to cut it back for the sake of the voters. For your first response, "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." Haven't I explained this at least a thousand times? I believe that the only people who deserve an upgrade in the police force are the people who train basically as hard as a real militant. " 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" I used ferguson as an example. You did not bring any specific example, only a vague one which seemed made up since you did not bother to cite any sources. Also, stop saying I misunderstanding. I'm not, I'm calling out the parts of your arguments that don't make sense. An officer does not act on behalf of the state, therefor no amendment is being violated. It's just plain murder. "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." While drug raids sometimes end in the death of bad people, they keep a lot of good people out of harms way. Also, in this section you talked about citations, but didn't cite anything, therefor, this entire argument is invalidated simply because you provide no evidence that has a source. "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" geese, you seem to know a lot about what I need to understand. Regulations will work once they are informed! If a community can provide assault rifles to police, then they sure can provide military grade training! Also, even if a county couldn't, why can't we just send them to a military base? Texas has huge training facilities! " 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" That is not how I responded to that!!! That's ridiculous, I believe I said something like, "there is little training for police now". Of course, right now there isn't, but later there could be! Later, we could turn the police into something powerful, yet made to protect. "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." Don't try to drop this argument, it relates to the topic, and it seems to be the first time you've seen a citation. If I bring up a point, it doesn't matter whether or not you talked about it, you can't just drop it. I talked about it, and since you never rebutted it, you myst agree. "ince 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." EQUIPMENT IS NOT FREE. You seem to misunderstand, tax payers pay for the equipment, therefor there should be regulations. Because you and I are paying for these weapons, we should be able to know that they are in safe hands with trained officers. https://www.troopers.ny.gov... There, it has been proven, and cited. Officers have regulated pistols, therefor you can most certainly regulate assault rifles. "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." Yes! A SURVEY! Which one? We will never know since you didn't cite anything. Therefor, this argument is invalid. "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." My main argument is that with proper training and regulation, paramilitary tactics/weapons would not have to be removed from the police force. I argued the topic, you chose to look over that, and then claim I said something I never said. "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." Waste money one training?! No such thing. Any type of training is beneficial. Also, I will repeat, there is no such thing as fee weapons. Finally, ". 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." 1.You made up percentages. I can say this because you didn't cite any sources. 2. You made up a number, that isn't even impressive. 3. No ones 8th amendment is being violated if a government body is not in the middle. A man from Georgia with a pistol and a shiny badge does not account on behalf of an ENTIRE body of government. He is not the Judge, Jury, or the prosecution. 4. I have though! I talked about how right now they are abused because any one is handed a weapon. Through proper training and regulations, this will stop. On several accounts now, you have said I have said things I never said. Thanks, I now stand open for rebuttals.