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

If you read my opponents argument before his most recent one he posted this in conclusion: My opponent has shared false information, made claims with absolutely no proof or justification yet when I actul post info. and proof he claims its plagiarism. When I posted my argument on round 2 my opponent claimed I needed more proof and information so I did just that on round 3, I provided evidence and proof during my first half of the speech and last half was all me 100%. So not only did I go by what he told me to do but I rebutted his points. Yet when I actual do what he tells me to do he claims its plagiarism.. even though half of it is info and the other half is typed. Also in high school debate you can use as much evidence as you want and the same rule applies here, I set up this debate so it is my rule and my rule only. Now that I got that out the way time to rebuttal his points 1. He claims I am trying to show a difference between swat and paramilitary tactics but I never mentioned that. Just for clarification opponent the swat uses paramilitary tactics sometimes cops do to. 2. About the reagon/bush thing that was info I got mixed up it was Bush due to war on terror 9/11 and opponent if you don't know which bush was president during 9/11 idk how you graduated high school but I will give it to you just incase you claim "no clarification again" GWB. changed the aim of tactics. 3. He claims Clinton was involved on evidence and senate and house pass before being signed by president which is kind of obvious. And again I admitted I got presidents mixed up but now that it's fixed the evidence is valid. And here is the source for 100-150 houses broken into for drug crimes a day, it's off a TFA bill doct so credible info. http://txfa.weebly.com... 5. HE claims I have one source and problem with one source is could be biased or lying so it doesn't count. So I will post more to add more to satisfy him and give me more arguments. And again if you don't want "plagiarized info" stop asking for it. Now paramilitary tactics are most commonly used to serve search warrants in drug-related cases. http://www.economist.com...... 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 http://txfa.weebly.com...... By the end of the decade, state and local SWAT teams were regularly being 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 http://readersupportednews.org...... "62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs. "Just under 80 percent were to serve a search warrant, meaning eight in 10 SWAT raids were not initiated to apprehend a school shooter, hostage taker, or escaped felon (the common justification for these tactics), but to investigate someone still only suspected of committing a crime. "In fact, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were "for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios." "In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent. "SWAT tactics are disproportionately used on people of color. "65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. In over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon, the presence of which was cited as the reason for the violent tactics. "Ironically (or perhaps not), searches to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes were more likely to result in forced entry than raids conducted for other purposes. "Though often justified for rare incidents like school shootings or terrorist situations, the armored personnel vehicles police departments are getting from the Pentagon and through grants from the Department of Homeland Security are commonly used on drug raids. http://www.washingtonpost.com... All of the above in bullet points are from one of the best sources possible the Washington post Heavily armed SWAT teams are increasingly used for such small tasks as raiding poker games and trying to stop underage drinking and drugs, and even bars as provided byhttp://readersupportednews.org....... O'Neal, an aspiring lawman, had been made an "honorary deputy" with the department. Though he had no training as a SWAT officer, Shaq apparently had gone on several raids with other police departments around the U.S . The thrill of bringing an untrained celebrity along apparently trumped the requirement that SWAT teams be staffed only with the most elite, most highly qualified and best-trained cops. According to Nuckols, O'Neal reached into Nuckols's pickup, snatched up his (perfectly legal) rifle, and exclaimed, "We've got a gun!" Denver police added that it fairly common to take sports stars on drug raid-. http://readersupportednews.org... Over time, the use of these units went from the rare hostage or mass shooter events to their regular deployment to execute no knock" warrants on suspected drug dealers, with flash grenades and battering rams. ://www.wbai.org... ." His last point is plagiarism and my whole argument is from a website but I already addressed that. The first half was evidence and proof cause he claim I had none and the 2nd half was just me responding like he prefers. I pointed out that if he didn't start making random claims that my evidence was off or I needed more evidence/more sources/more proof my argument would have had no evidence but again in regular debate and in rules I have for my debate you can use evidence if your opponent claims you have no proof or need more sources as he did in his last speech multiple times and the one before it. Now to move on to my opponents next point which is that I dropped the free equipment argument, I didn't drop it I provided a source for it seeing if you would attack it but you dropped it so I was like why bother bring it up again lol. I can wait until conclusion and have more voters XD and since you didn't attack it makes you look just as bad anyway and you probably know this from being in debate. The same goes for not trained to use equipment argument I don't have more characters to type so I don't' waste time extending arguments that stay where they are. his college shootings: college shootings that major pretty much rarely happen kind of like the Fergusson event. Also I posted info. on the Washington post further backing up why school arguments in defense of this equipment are irrelevant because most of the times its used on drug crimes and non-violent crimes. And again Washington post is one of the best sources along with the economist Washington times and NY times they can't lie on those sources which is why in debate everyone rubs it in and uses it and it is usually dropped or avoided. Voters 1. I have beyond proved what paramilitary tactics are used for and when continue to be used for so unless there is a justification in them being used on strip clubs, poker, or mostly drug crimes then I won. 2. Most of my opponents speech was just in credibility of information he has no arguments for his side at all really. 3. dozens of deaths per raids as I have shown in last speech, violates 8th amendment 4. no training 5. free equipment with little rules 6. raids so tied to non-violent crimes that famous stars like Shaquille can go on them 7. I argue over points based off arguments not sources Conclusion: we want people to admire and respect our police not regret or fear them and removing these tactics would make security seem like security againn