The Instigator
moneystacker
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
AbandonedSpring
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
moneystacker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 63933
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

moneystacker

Pro

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 tactics were originally made by President Reagan to combat drug problems which were way more severe and violent when this was implemented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
3.free 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.

These are my base arguments that I will back up more later in the debate when I have my opponent good luck and have fun and make sure you don't troll or forfeit.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Alright! Thanks for starting this debate! I will be taking the con side, so I will explain why we should not take military tactics/weapons away from American police officers!

Good luck!

I will organize my arguments alphabetically. I am also assuming since there are 4 rounds you want to wait till next round for rebuttal's, so I will.

A: If police officers have more advanced weapons and armor, they can keep America a safer place. I'm not saying their is not an abuse, I'm saying that in order to protect the overall body of America, we must allow our police to upgrade. While right now, the system is broken, it can most definitely be fixed. It is this possibility that it could be fixed, that is the reason why it shouldn't be removed all together.

B. Pistols and tear gas only go so far. In a case of serious civil unrest, police must be able to do their jobs. If this results in a better rifle, so be it. Also, pecan pie would we remove tactics away from police? The word 'tactic' is synonymous for 'strategy'. All tactics are is just a plan that will result in a specific outcome.

C. The police force obviously shouldn't be handed laser guided missiles, however they should have access to better assault rifles, and things of that nature. By doing this, you aren't removing paramilitary tactics, your simply restricting weapons that would cause too much collateral damage. We can also limit what the police ask for. If they ask for a tank, then the government shouldn't give them a tank. Military grade firearms would allow for the police to make the streets a safer place.

Thanks, I now stand open for rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
moneystacker

Pro

You could have rebutted early if you want wouldn't have done much cause that wasn't my case just a layout

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.
3.free 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 as cited by Washington post. So as you can see this equipment is used wrongly at a daily basis just because it's free and available.

That was my case time for response to opponents case

1. His first contention A is that police need this equipment to keep America safe but this isn't possible. Police are not trained to use this equipment info I provided in case so since they are not trained cannot provide safety to Americans will actually harm. There are many examples some cited by the blaze is when they throw in flash grenades in homes randomly. Not only in cases on fox news and on articles did this result in the person firing back but in most of the cases this type of engagement wasn't needed.

2. I will attack his 2nd contention B now which mainly talks about how pistols and tear gas only go so far. I agree but what my opponent has to understand is usually this equipment is only used for drug crimes and every once in a while a riot like the Ferguson incident also SWAT and other agencies are available and again the police are not even trained to use the equipment and since it is mainly used for drug crimes or minor things then it isn't justifiable to have the equipment since paramilitary tactics or "strategies" are only used mostly on drug crimes which is what they were originally made for under Reagan.

3. I will now attack his point C which overall which is saying to restrict weaponry. I would agree with this if it was possible but its not, what my opponent must realize is that the equipment is given for free by the town or city or area so it is locally managed. Paramilitary tactics include general military weaponry so probably not possible to restrict it as well. And last but not least if the police aren't trained to use the equipment more causalities such as the 50 deaths.

Conclusion: So since this equipment is angering Americans, causing deaths, used wrong, free so overly used, and asked for the wrong reasons I suggest a pro vote on this topic. I also would like to point out that their has been screening process to make sure this equipment is used right but they have failed. For example on the news their was this group of police using paramilitary tactics. They had this guy and this guy had a gun. One police man told him to put his gun down. The guy listened but after the guy put his gun down the police offer shot him 6 times with a rifle for no reason.
AbandonedSpring

Con

Alright, since I've already argued my case, I'll go ahead and rebut.

"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."

While I understand the blatant racism that went on there, molotov cocktails were found in a car. While I understand the protesters were peaceful, the looters were not. The police force focused their energy on the wrong battle. I'm really not sure how it happened, it seems fairly obvious, but it did. This was mainly because this form of weaponry is new to them. But the town looks like a war zone because of the looters. Police tear gas cannot tear stores apart.

""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."

While police may be hated, they are necessary. I agree the shootings of the innocent black men were wrong, and bound by racism, but the police had to step it up to deal with looters. I'll note that when a police car pulls you over, do you feel worried, or protected? Probably worried, because your about to get a ticket of some sort. Whether he has on camouflage of his blues, it's not a fun situation. I'd also like to note that while I do not support the death penalty, It is protected under the 8th amendment. I know this because the death penalty existed when the constitution was written. However, as times change, so do we. So I understand that we need to remove the death penalty.

"he 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"
I'd argue that weapons used in drug searches do protect us. They keep our streets clean, and put the bad people who might hurt us away.

The SWAT teams really weren't involved before, seeing as to how they basically already have military grade assault rifles.

"So as you can see this equipment is used wrongly at a daily basis just because it's free and available."

I'll agree that right now, the weapons might be abused. With proper regulations from the state, and proper training, the police force could be turned into something good for all.

" His first contention A is that police need this equipment to keep America safe but this isn't possible. Police are not trained to use this equipment info I provided in case so since they are not trained cannot provide safety to Americans will actually harm. There are many examples some cited by the blaze is when they throw in flash grenades in homes randomly. Not only in cases on fox news and on articles did this result in the person firing back but in most of the cases this type of engagement wasn't needed."

Again, this would go back to proper training and discipline. Those types of people shouldn't be allowed on the force, whether they carry a pistol or an M-16. There exist good cops, ones that wish to help America. That is the proper cop that deserves some up grades.

" I will attack his 2nd contention B now which mainly talks about how pistols and tear gas only go so far. I agree but what my opponent has to understand is usually this equipment is only used for drug crimes and every once in a while a riot like the Ferguson incident also SWAT and other agencies are available and again the police are not even trained to use the equipment and since it is mainly used for drug crimes or minor things then it isn't justifiable to have the equipment since paramilitary tactics or "strategies" are only used mostly on drug crimes which is what they were originally made for under Reagan."

Pistols are only used for drug crimes? Someone better tell every cop, ever. Tear gas has been used countless times in American history, and not all just in drug raids. http://www.usatoday.com...

This article directly pertains to our debate, so I feel like it's a good source. Once again, the police must be trained and discipline before they carry military grade weapons. They don't right now, but as this policy is accepted, they can receive proper training. I also think that drug raids are a justified use for these. Especially in a home, where the drugee has home turf. Improved weapons would help in that case.

" I will now attack his point C which overall which is saying to restrict weaponry. I would agree with this if it was possible but its not, what my opponent must realize is that the equipment is given for free by the town or city or area so it is locally managed. Paramilitary tactics include general military weaponry so probably not possible to restrict it as well. And last but not least if the police aren't trained to use the equipment more causalities such as the 50 deaths."

IT IS POSSIBLE TO RESTRICT WEAPONS IN THE POLICE FORCE. IT HAPPENS RIGHT NOW. Police are only allowed to carry licensed weapons. When a cop has proven that he would be okay with improved weapons, he will be issued a new gun, and then still be taken to court for a death, to see if it was justifiable. I also stand for cameras on police, simply because theirs too much "he said she said". For like the 1,000 time, I would require the police to be trained!!!!

"So since this equipment is angering Americans, causing deaths, used wrong, free so overly used, and asked for the wrong reasons I suggest a pro vote on this topic. I also would like to point out that their has been screening process to make sure this equipment is used right but they have failed. For example on the news their was this group of police using paramilitary tactics. They had this guy and this guy had a gun. One police man told him to put his gun down. The guy listened but after the guy put his gun down the police offer shot him 6 times with a rifle for no reason."

It's only angering a select number of Americans. The police who have access to these weapons right now are wrong. They have not been properly trained, and overall they are just bad people. Now, that's not to generalize the police, but the bad seem to be outweighing the good right now. Also, I really can't argue this because you didn't give me any facts. This s basically invalid only because I have no where to go to see this case.

Finally, if we were just to give certain cops, who have several years of experience better weapons. We would see dramatic change in society, for the better. So long as they are uncorrupt and trained well, we should not remove military weapons from the police force. I agree Ferguson was out of control, but those police were not trained.

Thanks, I am finished.
Debate Round No. 2
moneystacker

Pro

I will just attack what my opponent said

his first argument
While I understand the protesters were peaceful, the looters were not. The police force focused their energy on the wrong battle. . This was mainly because this form of weaponry is new to them. But the town looks like a war zone because of the looters. Police tear gas cannot tear stores apart.

Response to his first argument:
He argues that police had a right to use marine slandered weaponry and justified it by saying its new and they needed it. 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.

His second argument: While police may be hated, they are necessary. I agree the shootings of the innocent black men were wrong, and bound by racism, but the police had to step it up to deal with looters. I'll note that when a police car pulls you over, do you feel worried, or protected? Probably worried, because your about to get a ticket of some sort. Whether he has on camouflage of his blues, it's not a fun situation. I'd also like to note that while I do not support the death penalty, It is protected under the 8th amendment.

Response: 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. He brings up a police car worried thing I guess he is responding to my argument talking about the resentment people feel for security. That was my fault I meant to type paramilitary tactics. People hate military tactics and the fact that people die from them will increase this hate. What I was saying (which my opponent got confused on) is that since people hate this equipment and hate it even more when people die from it no reason to have it. We want people to feel pride, respect, and admiration toward cops not resentment or fear. So yeah clearly my opponent didn't attack my first point cause he was confused on the things I just addressed.

My opponents 3rd argument :I'd argue that weapons used in drug searches do protect us. They keep our streets clean, and put the bad people who might hurt us away.

Response: 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. Also as I said the only reason paramilitary tactics were made was because Reagan needed them to solve drug crimes since back then people who committed drug crimes back then had dangerous weapons that military tactics couldn't deal with. Now obviously they don't, an example of this is of course the guy I mentioned who only had a pistol and when the cop told him to put it down the cop still shot him 6 times using paramilitary tactics. Again just a reminder to consider when voting this military grade weaponry is mostly used for drug crimes as sources like the Washington post, fox news, and the blaze clearly show.

his 4th argument/point: I'll agree that right now, the weapons might be abused. With proper regulations from the state, and proper training, the police force could be turned into something good for all.

Response: 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. Since the equipment is free the community just stores it so training will not happen and it hasn't happened even though this equipment has been out for a decent amount of time now.

His next point
Again, this would go back to proper training and discipline. Those types of people shouldn't be allowed on the force, whether they carry a pistol or an M-16. There exist good cops, ones that wish to help America. That is the proper cop that deserves some up grades.

Response: 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. No military equipment is needed for a non-violent drug crime again it was needed in the past now it is outdated and isn't.

his next argument which is against my argument showing how most military tactics are used for drug crimes: Pistols are only used for drug crimes? Someone better tell every cop, ever. Tear gas has been used countless times in American history, and not all just in drug raids. http://www.usatoday.com......

Response: 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.

His next argument trying to claim they receive training :. Once again, the police must be trained and discipline before they carry military grade weapons. They don't right now,
Response: He is just agreeing with me in a way, if you read his argument as you can see training is a option and he even admitted they don't receive training right now. So yes he conceded that they don't get training cause its true. I agree with my opponent that yes paramilitary tactics should be used for other things but what you must understand is that it was put in place by Reagan for drug crimes so that will never change. It could maybe 20 years from now but for now it will never change so that argument is invalid.

His next argument about training
IT IS POSSIBLE TO RESTRICT WEAPONS IN THE POLICE FORCE.

Response: Since 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.

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.

Conclusion: 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.

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.
1. 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.
AbandonedSpring

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
moneystacker

Pro

I will now attack his training argument by pointing out there is little training which shows why basketball stars can go on raids with them (I will provide source later) In a 2012 article for the Huffington Post, my intern J. L. Greene and I looked at twenty-four recent cases of "puppycide" and called the relevant police departments to inquire about training. Only one department could confirm that its officers received training at the time of the incident in question. (Eleven departments did not return our phone calls.) Joseph Pentangelo, the ASPCA's assistant director for law enforcement, who also served twenty-one years with the NYPD, told me, "New York is the only state I know of that mandates formalized training, and that's during academy. There are some individual departments in other parts of the country that avail themselves of our training, but not many. Not enough."

I will attack his argument which is claiming that the deaths I bring up are not valid and the guy who got shot six times was a story I made up since I didn't put a source but he brings plenty of arguments like police weapons are restricted claim, so he just contradicts himself but here is my source for dozens of deaths anyway and if you research and add up from other sources as well its around 50. Here is the one for dozens of deaths and obviously dozens means more then just 12 http://www.cato.org... Here is evidence for a man that got shot 6 times even after he was told to put gun down http://www.economist.com...

I will now attack his next argument which is since I didn't site survey on the blaze of 90% dislike its not valid but again he never cites even a website for his claim that only a select Americans are angered by paramilitary tactics another major contradiction that must be considered in todays round. Also I have provided links for so much evidence it's insane, Whats even more ironic is every argument my opponent is making either has no proof or no proof or chance of happening, in the future (training only "good officers", or "paramilitary tactics can be used to improve school security" which was a way earlier argument.) Yes these things would be nice if that could happen but what you must realize is that since paramilitary tactics are directed at non-violent drug crimes, poker, and other non-violent activities it will remain that way unless something like Ferguson comes up.

Here is my source for the 100-150 raids http://txfa.weebly.com... FOCUSED ON DRUG CRIMES and for 40,000 raids on this conducted by swat and police each yearhttp://www.cato.org.... The only main argument my opponent has is sources and if you vote of sources he has lost as well.
Opponent has no sources
1. His main argument is that there are some good police that need equipment (no source)
2. restricted weaponry to ensure right use (no sources)
3. training and reulations will stop these deaths/incidences (no proof or evidence)
4. equipment is only hated by a select group of Americans (no source)

I will now just put voters
I would like to point out that I have showed what these tactics are mostly used for WITH EVIDENCE, my opponent has claimed that they can/could use them for schools, can/could use them for emergencies etc. But again in order to win that argument he would have to prove that paramilitary tactics area actually used for those things but since they are not his argument isn't relevant. That's like saying the FBI could be used as a local police force or tanks could be used to transport students to school, yes those are technically possible but its not going to happen, or at least not any time soon.

But yeah I proved what this equipment is used for and will provide again what it is used for with a bit more things.
1. 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....
I will put info backing up poker

Awtry was hosting a poker tournament in his Greenville, South Carolina, home when police began breaking down the door with a battering ram. Awtry had begun carrying a gun after being robbed. Thinking he was about to be robbed again, he fired through the door, wounding Deputy Matthew May in both arms. The other officers opened fire into the building. Miraculously, only Awtry was hit. As he fell back into a hallway, other players reporting him asking, "Why didn't you tell me it was the cops?" The raid team claimed they announced several times before putting ram to door, but other players said they heard no knock or announcement. When Awtry recovered, he was charged with attempted murder. As part of an agreement, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison. Police had broken up Awtry's games in the past. But on those occasions, they had knocked and waited, he had let them in peacefully, and he'd been given a $100 fine.
The poker raids have gotten bad enough that the Poker Players Alliance, an interest group that lobbies to make the game legal, has established a network of attorneys around the country to help players who have been raided and arrested.
And yeah that is just one raid couldn't fit all of them but yeah a bunch made pokers players alliance react.

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 clubshttp://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... ."

So yes as you can see tactics are mostly used for non-violent things not for protecting schools are emergencies as my opponent fairly try's to back up which could explain why people like Shaquille O'Neal can go on them.

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..., if they feel it is safe to take non-trained people into par tactics mostly combat non-violent crimes.

Conclusion: Vote for me because I show what tactics will continue to be used for and why they shouldn't while my opponent doesn't show why they should. These tactics will only be used for and have only been used mostly for drugs crimes so I have won
AbandonedSpring

Con

I honestly cannot figure out pecan pie you are not understanding my arguments. Either your reading them and then ignoring them, or just not reading them at all. I have stated several times that right now we aren't prepared for the militarization of police. With proper training, it could be safely achieved.

"I will attack his argument which is claiming that the deaths I bring up are not valid and the guy who got shot six times was a story I made up since I didn't put a source but he brings plenty of arguments like police weapons are restricted claim, so he just contradicts himself but here is my source for dozens of deaths anyway and if you research and add up from other sources as well its around 50."

you waited two whole rounds to source this, it's still irrelevant, mainly because I could not have dissected this because I had no where to research this.

Again, you waited two entire rounds to cite sources. It's too late now, there's nothing I can do now. Had you cited your sources 2 arguments ago, these points would be valid, but sadly they were not, and therefor they are still invalid.

"His main argument is that there are some good police that need equipment (no source)
2. restricted weaponry to ensure right use (no sources)
3. training and reulations will stop these deaths/incidences (no proof or evidence)
4. equipment is only hated by a select group of Americans (no source)"

Not only is this not even close to my actual arguments, I'm not even sure what your trying to get at. You provided statistics, then did not source them. They are invalid. I provided ideas, then supported with with examples. I do not need to source because I used common knowledge. Since it's your first debate, I will go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.

"I would like to point out that I have showed what these tactics are mostly used for WITH EVIDENCE, my opponent has claimed that they can/could use them for schools, can/could use them for emergencies etc. But again in order to win that argument he would have to prove that paramilitary tactics area actually used for those things but since they are not his argument isn't relevant. That's like saying the FBI could be used as a local police force or tanks could be used to transport students to school, yes those are technically possible but its not going to happen, or at least not any time soon."

Again, after 2 rounds you finally supported your argument, with articles that do not really apply. I will now note that no where in those articles does it mention the statistics you used earlier. Therefore, your argument is still invalid because you plagiarized. No where did I mention tanks, I only talked about assault rifles. Also, I do not have to prove that. All I have to prove is that they don't have to be removed. Which I did, and gave sources the first time I argued them.

Police can be trained to use the military equipment for good. So long as the state assigns proper and appropriate weapons, military grade weapons would be able to stay. Are we there right now? No, all the unnecessary violence from police officers is terrible, this is brought on because of improper training, and unregulated distribution of weapons. This is the argument that proves my entire case, and lays yours to rest. You talk about the negative things right now, but like I have been saying, though proper training and regulation, it could be a good thing. Since you never disproved that training would help this situation, I'm going to have to assume you agree. http://www.slate.com...

To summarize, my appoint claims that he only used facts from the given sources, yet something isn't adding up. He talked about 50 people killed a year, yet none of the sources he cited say this. So, either he made this statistic up, or he's plagiarizing. The police can be trained to be great in situations that relate to things like drug raids. Police need better weapons for things like drug raids for their own protection. Odds are, if you being detained for crack, you also have assault rifles. A police grade pistol is nothing compared to an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am finished.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
Abandoned what I don't understand is that you take sources so seriously but at the same time you don't take them so seriously. You use like 0-1 sources per speech and your evidence but when I use about 3 you criticize not only is this wrong but hypothetical. Also about the 50 deaths I posted a article that said dozens of deaths and I said if you look at others and add those deaths up it makes 50 but of course your to lazy to do that. I'm not going to post every source for you if you post none for me and I just want you to understand that.

Also in pf you argue you don't just critize sources like LD debate. Honestly I was hoping for a debatable round but you didn't attack any arguments I proposed you just kept going on about sources making this a boring debate. YOu never attack anything you just say train more and your sources suck. What I am asking of you is to not debate with me anymore I debated this to learn arguments for the other side not hear critizm from a hypocrite. I wanted arguments.. you just stated training which is a common sense thing no sources no interesting ideas. I debate to learn and I learned nothing but that some people need 20 sources on a page to be happy.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
just for clarification when I said already increase popular hatret for security I meant popular hatred for paramilitary tactics my bad on that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
moneystackerAbandonedSpringTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro backs ALL info up with reliable sources Con used 2 sources that happened to support his case intermittently the latter being an extremely bias news report which is borderline propaganda.