Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

Hmm I assumed that your forfeit meant you were giving up this debate, so I didn't bother posting another rebuttal.But, here it goes:My extensions to arguments (my opponent only rebutted to one of three)A. History: "violence begets violence"Sure Pro. But these aren’t just the qualities of a heavily armed police state. I even daresay the police today are much more nicer-- think about your local policeman. He's nice, he's helpful, he volunteers at elementary schools. Should we go back to times where we had police mericelessly beating protestors with sticks? Police today might have more armor, but at least they don't beat the crap out of every protestor walking across a bridge-- *ehem* Selma *ehem*.Rebuttals to PRO:1. Police cause riots.Police don't cause half as many riots as you'd like to think. These "cop riots" are a modern thing, and should not be correlated with abusive force. Heck, the 1960s had three times as many riots as we have today-- and those were "race riots"--, and I'm sure the police back then only had a cotton uniform and a wooden stick. Even the LA riots-- not caused by direct police action-- are considered one of the biggest riots of America. We shouldn't correlate more police equipment to riots. Moreover, riots like Ferguson were caused by accidental shootings that were attributed to racial discrimination, not police militarization. PRO's point fails.2. UniformsI took my evidence directly from PRO's source. Pity.3. SwattingDefinition of swatting: act of tricking an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing an emergency services dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response (Wikipedia).My opponent's argument, however, was two parts: Swatting and drug busts. I'll respond to both.I rebutted to the concept of swatting. I gave PRO how swatting will happen, no matter the abudndance of SWAT team, because that is the definition of swatting-- giving 911 enough reasons to send a SWAT team. If the city has enough teams, the caller can just say "I see drugs." If the city doesn't have many SWAT teams, the caller can fabricate elaborate evidence.PRO responded to my "swatting" counter with an argument about drug busts, so my counterpoint still stands.So moving on, PRO's argument of "drugs bust" doesn't fit under "swatting", but I'll rebutt to that anyways.In an average drug bust, a police force will find: 423.6 grams of cocaine 63.8 grams of heroin 7 grams of methamphetamine 5,157.8 grams of cannabis 453 illegal pills $15,676.02 in cash 2 assault rifles, a shotgun and a pistol 3 stolen vehicles You can't say these drug busts aren't ineffective. 2 assault rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol!? That's enough to call a SWAT team, unless my opponent would like to make an entire case to advocate gun control as well as fish out his sinking demilitarization case. But of course, there are unfortunate casualties, such as a baby. Losing a baby was sad, but it was an accident. It was a one-time deal, where the police on the scene screwed up. But what does that have to do with militarization? If the SWAT team had been wearing pink Hawaiian shirts, would the baby have lived? No. It was an accident, and it should not be attributed to pollice "militarization", but to general police care. 4. MRAPS save lives I argued above that the police DO NOT cause riots. In the case there ARE riots, MRAPS can supplement ambulances to save lives, especially when the general population is shooting each other. Conclusion: So what have I, the CON, achieved? I told you, the audience, about the history of police brutality and how they are not correlated with militarization-- in fact, riots have decreased since the 1960s--, how police use these equipment to fulfill their duty and make sure their "I love you" to their spouses wasn't their last, and how the PRO utilizes cherry picked evidence. Then I responded to each and every one of my opponent's arguments, rebuttals, and extensions. On the other hand, the PRO didn't achieve much. They dropped two-thirds of my arguments, barely responded to my rebuttals and extensions, and, like I prophesized, cherry-picked evidence from a source that I later used against them. PRO did not respond to my burden that I imposed on them since my first speech. Their next speech is their last chance to answer my burden. Audemus jura nostra defendere