The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,453 times Debate No: 63738
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




I belive we should remove military weapons from the U.S. for the following reasons

1. tactics were originally made by President Reagan to combat drug problems which were way more severe and violent when this was implemented
2. deaths from raids/people regret these police equipment so no hesitation to use
4.not trained to use equipment
5.Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations
6.Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons.

I will post arguments backing up these points during next round after I am sure I have an opponent. Con will post what his argument and then me mine good luck whoever debates on the con side


I accept the debate. Please begin.
Debate Round No. 1


this is my case

Intro: As many have noted, Ferguson, Missouri, looked like a war zone. And its police"kitted out with Marine-issue camouflage and military-grade body armor, using short-barreled assault rifles, and rolling around in armored vehicles thus being indistinguishle from soldiers. There is no surprise that this resulted in huge riots and protest from the people. I urge you representatives to pass this resolution to ensure securities good reputation doesn't continue to decrease and to ensure military grade equipment is used for military grade reasons .
Main points
1. paramilitary tactics out dated
were originally created under president Reagan to deal with drug crimes when they were serious and the people tended to be armed. Now that drug crimes have diminished there is no need to have such weaponry that is primarily used on drug crimes. Again these weapons on mainly used for drug crimes not for the overall safety of America. The police don't just walk around with this equipment ready in hand, it is only used for drug crimes and sometimes riots as I stated above.
2.50 deaths a year from raids
"Basically killing our own people with our own security which increases the already popular hatred of security . We want people to look at police officers and admire, or respect them not regret or fear them. Nonviolent crime should= a fair just non-violent punishment so in order for that to happen must remove these tactics. Giving a unfair death punishment also violates the 8th amendment so this practice is unconstitutional. equipment so no hesitation to use
"Department of Homeland Security handed out a whopping $35 billion in grants to state and local police. In addition, the Pentagon supplies surplus military hardware to police forces at virtually no cost. That is why the quiet little town of Keene, New Hampshire has an armored personnel carrier called a BearCat, which the local police chief said might be used to protect its pumpkin festival. So basically this just shows you that the equipment is free and has no limits to the usage of the equipment and an example of the crazy stuff it is used for.
4.Not trained to use equipment
5. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations
"Police in Watertown, Connecticut, (population 22,514) recently acquired a mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicle (sticker price: $733,000), designed to protect soldiers from roadside bombs, for $2,800. There has never been a landmine reported in Watertown,Connecticut
"At least 63 schools have M16 rifles, 14 have M14s, six colleges have mine-resistant vehicles and two have grenade launchers, according to a report by the Chronicle of Higher Education. More than 100 campus police departments are obtaining such weapons from the U.S. Department of Defense, according to Muckrock, a website that archives government documents and FOIA requests. Equipment sold by the feds can range from trousers and hammers to sniper rifles and Humvees. I would like to point out that usually the most dangerous things that happens at campuses could be crazy parties, rape, a fight at a part, etc. There hasn't been one military grade conflict so their is no reason for this military grade weaponry..
6. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons.
American cities, Mr Kraska writes that the rise in small-town SWAT teams was driven not by need, but by fear of being left behind. Police departments in towns like his often invest in military-style kit because they "want to keep up" with larger forces. Some of these areas are not very violent at all and just want this equipment because its free and advanced.
7.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. So as you can see this equipment is used wrongly at a daily basis just because it's free and available.


I want to thank Pro for instigating this debate.

Since he is Pro, and desires a change in policy which goes against the status quo, the full burden falls on him to show that "we must remove paramilitary tactics/weapons from U.S. police forces".

All I must do is negate his arguments and in doing so I hope to show the audience why this resolution should stand negated.

I. Paramilitary tactics outdated

My opponent claims that paramilitary tactics "were created under President Reagan to deal with drug crimes". This is false.

SWAT, short for 'Special Weapons and Tactics', was actually started long before President Reagan. The first SWAT team is rumored to have been created by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1964. [1] What we do know is that the LAPD was one of the first to have a fully established SWAT team. In fact, according to, the teams were formed in the late 1960's to combat several sniping incidents that were occurring around the country. [2]


I will quote directly from source 2: "...the leadership of the LAPD realized that an effective response to these dangerous situations was virtually non-existent. Officer John Nelson presented the special weapons and tactics concept to a young inspector by the name of Darryl F. Gates. Inspector Gates concurred and approved the concept of a small group of highly disciplined officers utilizing special weapons and tactics to cope with these unusual and difficult attacks."

I would like the audience to take note of the purpose for SWAT, "to cope with unusual and difficult attacks". Nothing is mentioned of Ronald Reagan or the drug war in regards to its inception. Pro either purposely shared false information, or simply misunderstood the true purpose and origins of SWAT.

Furthermore, they are not "outdated". Many SWAT teams receive bi-monthly training, and it is safe to assume that during such training they are updated on the latest tactics which produce the most effective means to end a life-threatening scenario.

II. 50 deaths a year from raids

My opponent claims that "non-violent crimes should = a non-violent punishment". Yet, he fails to show how any of those 50 deaths are from non-violent crimes. Pro needs to prove that each of those deaths stemmed from non-violent crimes, or else neither I or the audience have any reason to accept this claim as valid. Since my opponent shared false info in his last argument, I demand proof to validate this claim.

Furthermore, even if he can prove that each of these 50 deaths are from non-violent crimes, he will still need to justify the potential loss of life that would occur should such SWAT teams truly be dismantled. We must remember, they respond to unique situations including bank robberies and kidnapping. Without them, are common police forces would not have the specialized equipment or training to deal with such scenarios. Pro presents no contingency plan.

III. Free equipment so no hesitation to use

Such equipment is usually leftovers or unneeded for war efforts. Considering that we, the taxpayer, pay the fees for the manufacturing of such equipment, do you really find it justified to just throw it all in the trash once it becomes outdated on the battlefield? I don't. I'd like to see something I paid for used fully before scrapping it - otherwise, it's just a waste of our money.

Even though it's outdated for the battlefield, we must remember that civilian life still poses threats in which this equipment can be utilized effectively. Sure, it's weird that a small town has such a thing, but if a scenario ever arises where it would actually be useful, it'd be better to have it rather than not having it. The difference could be countless lives saved when it's needed the most. The common saying, "Better to be safe than sorry" comes to mind.

In actuality, that little town is now effectively equipped for a major disaster. The whole point about disasters is that we never know when one will happen, thus I find it very comforting to know that a little town now has the means to combat extreme forces be it man or nature, whereas before they might have had to wait until a larger city could send men or equipment there.

IV. Not trained to use equipment

False, again, and this time there isn't even an argument supporting this, much less any evidence. I touched on this slightly in rebuttal I. Most SWAT team members join that unit after already having careers as police officers or sheriff deputies. So, not only are they already trained by the police academy, but then new SWAT recruits are given an additional 15-30 weeks of specialized training. [3] [4]


V. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations

I feel my rebuttal for part III. can also be applied here. It's not so much a question of "DO they need it", but more so of "How can we effectively get the full-life out of unneeded military equipment". In regards to campuses, we've seen several campus shootings already this year. My opponent thinks parties, rape, or fights are all that happens. He is clearly misinformed of college shootings that occur.

In 2013, there were 27 college shootings that occurred throughout America. [5] This also includes the deaths of 18 people, and countless other injuries. As I said previously, we can never be too safe since, in reality, we never know when the next Columbine or Sandy Hook will occur. I would personally feel safer knowing that my University police were trained in SWAT tactics and had access to that equipment. Even if it improves response time by only one minute, the potential to save more lives is apparent.


VI. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons

Why shouldn't they keep up with the big cities? My opponent assumes that just because they want to keep up that they are somehow evil or doing it for the wrong reasons. Obviously the bigger cities have an understanding of the best way to take down criminals that require special tactics, and thus the small towns merely want to also have the best available means to tackle any potential disaster or criminal activity that demands it. Since such criminal elements exist in cities, they are always up-to-date on the most effective means to respond. I'd find it worse if the small towns DIDN'T want to keep up. By them wanting to, it shows the citizens that they are being protected by a force which is up-to-date and capable of tackling even the worst-case scenarios. It only takes a second for a disaster to strike, and it takes the most effective and up-to-date equipment to allow for the best and most effective response.

VII. SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homes

Pro claims that SWAT teams smash into homes roughly 100-150 times a day. Once again, he has utilized nothing in terms of sources to validate this claim. Since his first claim was obviously false, I'm not confident that this one is valid in any way, shape or form. I demand proof for this claim, otherwise, neither myself nor the audience have any reason to accept this as anything more than a misguided opinion. Both this and the violent crimes reference call for proof, otherwise it holds no validity and therefore fails to affirm your position.

In closing,

My opponent has shared false information, made claims with absolutely no proof or justification, and has had every argument rebutted.

Keep in mind, he must overcome each of my rebuttals, otherwise there is no grounds for him to win this debate.

I thank both Pro and the Audience once more, and now return the floor to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


I will attack what my opponent said.

My opponent says that paramilitary tatics were out before reagon. I admit i got source mixed up my bad it was Bush who made new role for the tactics. What matters is that when Bush was in office he set a role for paramilitary tatics to pretty much just focus on drug crimes which is why they are used on drug crimes 100-150 times a day as I cited earlier. I don't see the simlieraty between "swat tatics" and "paramilitary tactics" I think there is a difference and that is the tactic used itself. So who made/created doesn't matter.

Here is even more proof of what tatics are used for

1. 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. Washington's war on drugs ." This proves that paramilitary tactics are now primarily for drugs and again this evidence as well 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 this is from a UIL bill we have in Texas for congress in highschool debate right now so credible info.

2. futher proof that the tactics aren't needed for war on drugs
ACLU survey looks at the SWAT team activities in 260 law enforcement agencies located in 26 states and the District of Columbia. What the civil liberties group found was that 61 percent of the people caught up in these paramilitary raids were people of color. Seventy-nine percent of the SWAT team deployments were not for the mass shooter or hostage event type of scenario they were originally created to deal with but for executing search warrants related to the war on drugs. In the majority of deployments they surveyed "the police did not face genuine threats to their safety and security," the ACLU concluded. My opponents last argument is to create a healthy scenario but about 50 people die a year from misuses of these tactics.

His next argument is that my deaths per year argument is false:
Here is proof and source:
Americans have long maintained that a man"s home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.
Raids on drugs causing deaths
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they"re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

Proof that equipment is misused daily:
EARLY one morning a team of heavily armed police officers burst into the home of Eugene Mallory, an 80-year-old retired engineer in Los Angeles county. What happened next is unclear. The officer who shot Mr Mallory six times with a submachine gun says he was acting in self-defense Mr. Mallory also had a gun, though he was in bed and never fired it. Armed raids can be confusing: according to an investigation, the policeman initially believed that he had ordered Mr Mallory to "Drop the gun" before opening fire. However, an audio recording revealed that he said these words immediately after shooting him. Mr Mallory died. His family are suing the police.These teams, whose members wear body armour and are equipped with military-style weapons, were originally intended to tackle only the most dangerous criminals, such as murderers or hostage-takers. Now they are most commonly used to serve search warrants in drug-related cases. The police raided Mr Mallory"s home, for example, because they thought they would find a methamphetamine factory there. Instead they found two marijuana plants, belonging to a stepson who had a California medical-marijuana licence. Such tragedies are too common in America. One reason is that the police have become more militarised. Raids by Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) units used to be rare: according to Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University there were only about 3,000 a year in the early 1980s. Now they are routine: perhaps 50,000 a year

I will not attack his argument he made on me about free equipment: He is saying that it is justifiable that police have military grade equipment because it isn't needed anymore. What he is pretty much saying that if lets say certain tanks aren't needed anymore as well in the military should hand straight over to the cops. Any weapon the military doesn't need anymore should go to cops?? That's not true I agree the equipment shouldn't be thrown away obviously there are other options besides handing it over to cops. We could keep just incase of a weapon shortage or recycle and use to make new weapons or just store them in case of emergencies in the U.S. that qualify for its use.

His next argument is about college shootings
So he claims equipment needed in schools but he only showed 23 cases and out of those 23 there were a total of 18 deaths. So basically probably about 1 death per shooting and some injured.... which is where regular police tactics apply they can deal with this kind of thing they deal with killings in this genre everyday. Also my opponent doesn't show what guns were used by attacker on shooting so again no proof they were big enough for paramilitary tactics and something regular police tactics couldn't handle. He doesn't show that m-16s and heavy vehicles were needed in these shootings.

I will attack his next argument which is Small towns need equipment:
Again this equipment is mostly abused for non-needed situations and used for drug crimes and again I provided evidence showing that the small towns don't even get it to protect to citizens they just get it to keep up and say they have it so they can get higher ratings on security.
American cities, Mr Kraska writes that the rise in small-town SWAT teams was driven not by need, but by fear of being left behind. Police departments in towns like his often invest in military-style kit because they "want to keep up" with larger forces.Some of these areas are not very violent at all and just want this equipment because its free and advanced. And again equipment is mostly used for non-violent drug crimes not emergencies.

Conclusion: I will attack his conclusion with this conclusion. He claims all of my arguments in case before this rebuttal had no evidence but I put sources and even provided more sources on this one. Only thing that was misunderstood was I looked it up and Bush just enforces it more on drug crimes you were right I messed up on info. they just changed use of tactics not created it.

he claims I misunderstood the main purpose of swat but there


I. Paramilitary tactics outdated

Right off the bat my opponent admits that his claim was wrong. I'm glad he was able to recognize this, but he continues to make claims which are backed by no evidence or sources whatsoever. He now claims it wasn't Reagan, but instead Bush. Considering there are two Bush presidents, I must ask Pro which one he is even talking about, because at this point neither I nor the audience know since Pro failed to provide proper clarification.

Furthermore, I pointed out in the last round how Pro has provided no evidence that they are used on drug crimes 100-150 times a day, nor did he ever cite sources to verify this claim earlier or now. I'm still waiting for proof to be presented. Who made/created it matters a great deal since Pro doesn't even know what he is talking about. Earlier he tried to state it was Reagan and I showed that he was wrong. Now he tries to say it was President Bush without stating which one. What matters is that Pro continues making false claims backed by no evidence. I'd also like Pro to show the difference between SWAT and Paramilitary tactics since he is arguing that there is a difference yet fails to show any difference.

To sum up Pro's opening: he made more baseless claims, acknowledged that his first claims were incorrect, and now fails to, again, provide any evidence for every claim he's made thus far.

I. a. In response to point 1 by Pro.

First off, the first link Pro shared brought me to an empty page. So there is no evidence that his opening line in this section is even valid - for all I know, and from past experience with Pro, this is just another baseless claim backed by nothing. Secondly, he still fails to show the difference between "paramilitary" tactics and "SWAT" tactics. From what I can tell in the 2nd link shared, the NDAA was passed by President Clinton... further proof my opponent has no idea what he is talking about. It was also passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate before being signed by Pres. Clinton. Lastly, the link stated that: 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. Not once did they cite a source for verification. Pro is merely copying whatever it says without questioning the validity of the claim or providing proof for such a statistic.

I. b. In response to point 2 by Pro.

The main issue with quoting statistics from just one source is that there is no way to verify that the source isn't biased or incorrect. We have to remember, the police don't know what is waiting for them on the other side of that door. Drug dealers, more often than not, have weapons to protect both their homes and drugs or product. To them, the police is the #1 enemy and threat. There are countless cases where drug busts result in weapons being found:

1) In a recent drug bust in Harris County, TX they found "A variety of shotguns, handguns and an AR-15 with a full 30-round clip and a military-grade night scope."

2) In Dekalb County, Alabama, three busts led to the discovery of an assault rifle and 9mm handgun.

3) In Corpus Christi, a bust led to the discovery of 30 guns ranging from handguns to military-style weapons, including a military-grade AR-15, and a shotgun with a silencer on it.

My opponent must consider that when faced against the unknown elements behind every door, it is wise to take appropriate measures to ensure safety. In each of these cases, the officers tasked with the drug busts have found military-grade weapons. Is it really that hard to see why military gear and tactics are necessary to protect officers from "military-grade weapons"? I think not. They are merely protecting themselves using the same type of gear that modern drug-dealers are working with, that of the military-grade.

II. 50 deaths a year from raids

My opponent plagiarised this entire section! He literally copy and pasted from his source! Furthermore, the exact same wording can be found on several other sources after a simply Google search. C/P his entire argument into a Google search... literally the entire first page of results has exact word-for-word links. I'm sorry, but am I debating an author named Radley Balko, or am I debating Pro? This is a horrendous betrayal of conduct, and I ask the audience to please vote accordingly when considering his blatant plagiarism.

Unless Pro can manage to make his own arguments, I see no reason for providing a rebuttal to this section. On, we are not allowed to directly plagiarise someone elses arguments.

Proof of his plagiarism:

His entire argument comes from an excerpt of the Book- Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

III. Free equipment so no hesitation to use

Pro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument.

Therefore I extend all arguments.

IV. Not trained to use equipment

Pro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument.

Therefore I extend all arguments.

V. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations

I think the closest point he made relating this line of argumentation was his next response after the plagiarism titled, "More proof that equipment is misused daily."

Again, he plagiarised the entire article. More so, this is not proof that "it is misused daily" - it's merely one case and the investigation isn't even complete yet. Furthermore, the last part about "perhaps 50,000 a year" is nothing more than baseless conjecture. My opponent continues to rely on unproven claims.

V. a. College shootings

Pro claims I don't show what guns were used in the shootings, but clearly in the article I utilized last round one can see the specific cases highlighted with hyperlinks. For instance, in the Santa Monica story highlighted by the article, the hyperlink brings you to the full-story where it is shown that an AR-15 among additional rifles and handguns were used.

Furthermore, Pro fails to understand that it isn't my burden to show that these tactics are necessary, but rather, it is his burden to show that they weren't. He has just committed the fallacy known as Burden of Proof [1] where he wrongly places the burden on the person who isn't affirming the resolution. I don't have to show anything, but if Pro fails to show why they aren't needed, then he fails to maintain his BOP. So far, he hasn't done so. He just repeats that "regular police could handle it" without showing HOW they could handle it.


VI. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons

Pro hasn't once showed how this equipment is "abused"! And what is wrong with towns wanting such equipment for "higher ratings on security"? Pro hasn't once shown how a desire to be protected with the latest gear is bad. He's just making baseless assumptions once more.

In closing,

Pro has continued to misunderstand his own information, failed to provide clarity in sections that call for it, failed to provide valid evidence, plagiarised, and dropped multiple arguments.

I ask that he respond to the dropped arguments, apologizes for his plagiarism, and produce valid evidence which can be verified for accuracy while also correcting his misinformation once again.

At this point, the resolution stands negated.
Debate Round No. 3


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.

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.

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

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

"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.

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 by

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-.

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. :// ."

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.

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


My opponent begins his final round by claiming that I told him to plagiarise. That's beyond absurd. It is evident in my last round that he did nothing more than copy and paste his entire argument. Not only that, but he failed to give proper citations when using the book authors argument for his own. I see no apology from Pro, so it seems that instead of owning up to his error he has decided to blame me for his own plagiarism. This is not highschool debate, this is where the site rules have precedence over anything else. Trying to claim it's alright to plagiarise because it's your debate is ridiculous and such rules were never put forth by you before the start of this debate, thus they hold no weight now in your last round.

I. Paramilitary tactics outdated

Pro provides no rebuttal for his mistake of holding Bush responsible when it was, in fact, Clinton - as seen in his own link in Round 3. My opponent first stated it was Reagan who created SWAT, which after being shown as wrong changed it to Bush. Again, that was wrong, and he has provided no explanation for his false claims. The bill in question is the 1997 NDAA act which Pro himself shared: which was signed by Clinton, not Bush. I'll consider that dropped by Pro.

Additionally, my opponent misunderstands my position, I never claimed he was "trying to show a difference between SWAT and paramilitary tactics", I showed that they are one in the same. It was Pro who never showed us the difference. This entire time Pro has been claiming they are two different things, but never showed us any difference between them. He's now just reaffirming what I've already shown the audience, and all due to his own misunderstanding of his own position.

II. 50 deaths a year from raids

Once again, my opponent plagiarises from an article written by the same author whose book he copied his last rounds arguments from.

Pro, again, fails to properly cite the author as the one who created these arguments. At this point, I believe it reasonable to conclude that Pro does not understand what plagiarism is, either that or he honestly believes it is alright to do so because it's his debate. This is not how works, and I only hope that the judges vote accordingly with his continued plagiarism in mind.

Furthermore, in response to the 8 plagiarised points from the washington post link which was what he copy and pasted from (and which was authored by the same man who he plagiarised from in the last round) it seems Pro fails to acknowledge that a majority of these drug raids end up in seizures of military grade weaponry which I've previously shown in my last round. I'll consider that line of argumentation dropped. When going up against a force that has military-grade weaponry, it's understandable why police forces would rely on military-grade tactics themselves.

III. Free equipment so no hesitation to use

Pro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument.

Therefore I extend all arguments.

IV. Not trained to use equipment

The only response I see from Pro in relation to this line of argumentation is that Shaquile O'Neil has been made an "honorary deputy" and taken on several raids. Pro, again, relied on the source which brought me to their homepage - not a direct article which would serve to validate the claim. For the sake of argumentation though, I conducted my own search to see if there was any truth to this claim. What I found was this:

In the article, Shaq was sworn in as a reserve officer for the Miami-Dade police officer. It states, " He spent the past year training for the Miami Beach police reserve officer position and can now add the $1 a year salary to his $100 million..." Right off the bat, Pro's claim that he wasn't trained for that position fails to hold any weight, since I am showing empirical evidence that says the contrary, which is that he was indeed trained.

In a second article related to his time at the L.A. sheriffs office, it states that, "While playing for the Los Angeles Lakers, O'Neal went through the police academy and became a reserve officer with the L.A. Port Police."

Not only am I providing direct evidence that contradicts what Pro is attempting to claim, but I'm doing so with sources that direct the audience to actual articles which can serve to validate my position in negating the false, unproven, claims presented by Pro.

V. Unnecessary equipment ready to use for unnecessary situations

My opponent claims, "paramilitary tactics are most commonly used to serve search warrants in drug-related cases." Yet his source for that claim, just brings us to the home page of - there is no direct article associated with this source. Therefore, I cannot validate the claim due to the lack of evidence and see no reason to view this as anything more than an uninformed opinion. Based on Pro's previous mistakes regarding which President started what, there is a necessary BOP he must achieve and cannot do so with such broken sources.

Pro additionally claims that, "state and local SWAT teams were regularly 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." He provides evidence for this claim with the following link: Once again, Pro provides a broken source which is nothing more than the homepage of a 3rd party news outlet. There is no article attached directly to the link and therefore I have no reason or direct evidence to accept Pro's claim as valid.

VI. Small towns not asking for equipment for the right reasons

Pro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation; dropped this argument.

Therefore I extend all arguments.

VII. SWAT teams in the US violently smash into homes

My opponent shared this document as proof that there are between 100-150 homes broken into for drug crimes a day:

This is exactly what he did in the last round too. My response was that the document itself has no sources for that claim. It's merely a document on the web which states the claim but in itself is not a source of such a claim. Pro additionally cites this page, as another source for the claim, but after looking at the source I fail to see any direct evidence which would serve to validate his claim.

I can claim that it's only 5 homes a day, but without evidence to back up that claim, there's no reason for the audience to accept it as valid. Pro fails to realize this for the 2nd round in a row. I'll therefore consider this dropped by Pro and extend the challenge of him needing to provide direct evidence to validate this claim.

In closing,

My opponent has made several errors which should rightfully cost him the debate.

1) Since Pro was attempting to debate against the status quo, the Burden of Proof was fully on him. I did not need to present arguments since my rebuttals are already counter-arguments. All I needed to do was stop Pro from affirming the resolution with challenges. He failed to overcome several of those challenges found in the form of rebuttals and therefore failed to affirm his position.

2) Pro dropped several arguments throughout the debate, which is a failure on his part to overcome each of the challenges I present.

3) Pro plagiarised several arguments and failed to acknowledge his own error while continuing to plagiarise in later rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Lmao mhmm
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
I agree so lets move on show we? and make sure you actuly form arguments this time and not just argue over sources/credibility/plagiarism cause that is how this started. Also some people might not buy the plagiarism thing so just to help out just attack the actul info.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
From this point on, I'm just going to focus on the debate. This conversation is futile.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
ok my bad on realy don't know much was a response to something kinda harsh you said idr what it was but yeah.

High school debate is different form this. On this you don't need authors which is why no one post them. Also what you are not understanding is that on round 2 I did what you are telling me to do now. I posted a case with my own ideas. I literally did a whole argument I made myself and you said this , no proof, no evidence, lies.

So did you except me to do the same thing again so you could make that claim again? Of course not so I posted evidence, sources, and proof from articles for 1/2th of my speech and then the last half was myself responding to try and make you as satisfied as possible.

Round 2 I literally did what you are saying I should do yet you made me have to put evidence/stuff because you claimed it was false crap or lies or some other bs.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
I never assumed anything, you said "I didn't learn much" and I disagreed based on the fact that you really don't know me or what I've done in regards to debating experience.

In regards to plagerism, there is a difference between someone posting accurate sources for proof, and someone literally copy and pasting the entire opinion of a different person. Obviously I'm not going to take your word at face-value when you present false-information right at the start, hence proof is certainly needed for anything you claim from that point on. There are more effective ways at proving the validity of your claims aside from just c/ping someone else's opinion.

You seem thick-headed though, so I doubt you'll take anything I say as valid advice. In the future though, don't be surprised if someone calls you out for plagerism or faulty evidence when you present false information and c/p entire paragraphs without citing the original author.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
LOl no one on these debates cites the other they just post a source. 2nd of all congress is differnet from debate most of it is talking and 3rd I have time to get 1st place and a 53-0 record it could happen so don't assume it can't. Also if you ask me for a source or claim I have no proof I have to post proof. Ovboiusly you didn't buy my arguments when I argued them by myself without sources in round 2 you claimed it was fake/no proof/ no evidence. SO of course I would provide it idk why you get upset when I provide evidence when you clearly asked for it. Also half of it was a response anyway and half was post evidence even when you asked for it. but yeah we will see what the voters say
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Dude, you can't copy and paste an entire paragraph as your argument when it's an argument made by someone else. Do you really not know what plagerism is? Either way, until you win a 1st place trophy, or have a 53-0 debate record, don't tell me what I do or do not know. Even in student congress it's a cheap move to copy word-for-word someone else's argument. You didn't even cite the author. I suppose at the end of the day it'll be up to the judges to see who wins. Good luck.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
Well obviously you haven't learned much. And I am new to congress I admit so far got 3rd place trophy and 2nd not as good as 1st but since I am currently in debate.. and your not things could change. And obviously they ha since you guys didn't use evidence much when you were in debate. I was in pf like 2 years ago and it was like that. Evidence played a vital role. So it is allowed in this debate and also you relize your the only reason I responded with evidence right? You claimed all my evidence was false or I had no evidence and then when I post it you claim its plagiarized, its almost like your trying to turn each thing around no matter what I do as a cheap way to win lol.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
I have a first place trophey in my room from when I was on the Highschool debate team. Once again, you speak on things you know nothing about. Good luck in your next round.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
I guess you have never been in highschool debate blade of truth. IN debate you can use evidence in fact you can make your whole rebuttle evidence if you want but I made half evidence and half talking in fact I posted sources on purpose because your allowed to. IF I wanted to hide it I wouldn't post the sources XD so you get no gain from that and it doesn't effect conduct
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: plagiarization and dropping of many important argument from pro. yet another victory for BoT
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro can't do grammar well and all points were rebutted but didn't address Con without either accusing or insulting.