Law Enforcement should be treated no different from criminals.

My anecdotal story in my previous argument was just that; an anecdote, it does not prove that law enforcement officers are all criminals or that most of them are criminals. My opponent (note: my opponent is Con, but this is contradictory to his position and so I advise all judges to disregard the positions of Pro and Con in this debate)My opponent has also failed in providing any evidence to his positive assertions again in this round. I will dissect his argument regardless and point out the fallacies in the argument."My opponent needs to understand that i to was a victim by police. But i have also taken witness to police that have abused their power by beating up certain people who have done nothing wrong period." This ia an anecdote and doesn't prove that the police are criminals. I agree with my opponent in that some police officers are corrupt by committing crimes and disrespecting their duties or abusing their powers. However, my opponent's claim is that the police is inheritely corrupt everywhere and resorts to using anecdotes to support his claim such as this one. It does not prove anything."I have also witnessed police officers harassing and disrespecting people that have been offended by police." This is yet another anecdote and doesn't prove anything in this debate; though it can make for an interesting story with friends over beers."In the past and even now people place a lawsuit against our law enforcement because they either break their own laws or they are abusing their police powers." My opponent does two things with this statement: He has destroyed his own argument because he admits that law enforcement officers who have broken laws have been taken to court and/or sued. This actually supports my argument that police officers are not exempt from the law and when they break it, they can be punished to the full extent before the judicial system. Much of my opponent's arguments, including this statement, are stereotype fallacy and he is playing on the stereotype that all law enforcement officers are corrupt. "so don't take what my opponent is saying lightly cause i am living proof that police are crooked and dishonest." My opponent's anecdotal experiences are not sufficient to support his assertions. If my opponent continues to use anecdotes and no form of real evidence, citations or sources to backup his assertion, then it will be obvious that those assertions are false; or atleast, unsound in their logic. My opponent's entire argument, as I said before, is a stereotype fallacy. It is the exact same faulty logic that defines many aspects of racism such as "All Asians are smart because my friend is Asian in my class and she's very smart!" or "All Blacks are criminals because I myself have been a victim of a crime committed by a black person. I am living proof that all blacks are dangerous criminals!". The entire logical fallacy of my opponent's argument can be summed up as: All X's have the characterization C Z is an X Therefor, Z has the characterization C In this case my opponent's argument is: All 'Law Enforcement Officers' have the characterization 'Criminality'. yet there is no factual basis for this characterization. All my previous argument stand and have yet to be rebutted.