RESOLUTION: The police should be demilitarized
As societies have progressed, there has been an increasingly increased rate of group leadership, this is, in contrPropast to, single leadership. We are, mostly, far and away from the days of a single ruler in first world countries, and even such countries with monarchies intact have a parliamentary procedure in order to... try to check the monarch's power. Though one could argue any democracy is lead by a single citizen, the president, in a proper representative democracy, that power is given to a voted official, the power of which policies to ensure (theoretically), belongs to the people with suffrage, the right to vote. -
In order to enforce their power, they have a group of armed citizens, trained to enforce the democracy as agreed upon by the citizens proverbial signing of the societal contract. This enforcement force takes on many forms, the FBI, CIA, and, the group under discussion today, the state police departments. Before one can justly argue for their repertoire, it is essential to identify the actual role that police have in society, and that is - enforcing the rules of democracy as the represented voted officials have agreed upon. They are ensuring that laws are followed and that society can prosper.
Then the obvious question becomes the unspoken elephant in the room - do the Police need military-grade equipment to enforce the laws of, and yes, this is not in the resolution, but for discussion, America? My opponent has argued that we should not "de"militarize the police force, and again - has not submitted a specific country - therefore I will assume of America. In order for that question to be answered as precisely as possible, it is required that I define all terms in the resolution as authoritatively as possible - vague definitions are only likely to inhibit the truth of the matter.
- Militarization of Police - "The militarization of police is the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and Special Weapons and Tactics teams."
Source: Wikipedia - Definition accepted - though its sourcing is vague, a very quick search eliminated the problem: [LINK]
- furthermore, it is topical to the resolution at hand - and will therefore be preferred over the course of the debate.
INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:
The resolution: The police should be demilitarized, in order to properly interpret the resolution it is imperative that the definitions of each term in the stated resolution be explained; some of the words or prefixes in the resolution have multiple meanings; such as De meaning to either add the meaning "remove" or "reduce" - the resolution could be interpreted to mean either of these: "The correct/best thing for the police to do is to make the use of military equipment and tactics less" or "The correct/best thing for the police to do is to take away the use of military equipment and tactics" arguing for either interpretation would fulfill my burden of proof.
- As explained in INT. T. RES. above arguing that the militarization of the police should be reduced or removed are both valid ways to fulfill my burden of proof
- As should is defined it requires a standard to be established, that way the voters can determine what the "best/correct" thing to do is - therefore if my opponent fails to recommend a standard for his resolution, his argument is untopical, as it falls outside of the resolution
- There ought to be no arguments regarding the legal "how" of the resolutions, nor the practicality, only what is the "best" thing to do.
ARG I - ESTABLISHING STANDARDS.
- Ia - the priority of the police
- Ib - the foundation
- Ic - the multiple standards
In order to properly establish a standard regarding what the "best/correct" thing to do is- we must first identify what it is that the police are trying to do. That means an identification of the goal that the police hope to accomplish, with that in mind, then can the voters reasonably infer what is the "best" thing for the police to do. Previously, I posited that the goal of the police is to enforce the rule of law in society, to uphold the societal contract signed by every citizen. However, such postulation is little more than unsubstantiated claims without any sourcing; as such, I submit the following to reinforce my arguments 
"Standard 1-2.2. Major current responsibilities of police
In assessing appropriate objectives and priorities for police service, local communities should initially recognize that most police agencies are currently given responsibility, by design or default, to:
(a) identify criminal offenders and criminal activity and, where appropriate, to apprehend offenders and participate in subsequent court proceedings;
(b) reduce the opportunities for the commission of some crimes through preventive patrol and other measures;
(c) aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm;
(d) protect constitutional guarantees;
(e) facilitate the movement of people and vehicles;
(f) assist those who cannot care for themselves;
(g) resolve conflict;
(h) identify problems that are potentially serious law enforcement or governmental problems;
(i) create and maintain a feeling of security in the community;
(j)) promote and preserve civil order; and
(k) provide other services on an emergency basis."
It is true that such text does not deliberately states: "uphold the societal contract" - notice that collectively the police do such things as to uphold the contract, specifically: A, B, C, D, F, J - these services, broadly, include idenitfiyng and apprehending criminals breaking the laws and therefore the social contract, and upholding/maintaining the guarentees that the social contract ensures individuals. It is therefore true that police officers in the United State's goals are, broadly, to uphold the societal contract, which includes but is not limited to: guarenteeing constitutional rights to every citizen, apprehending those who abuse the law, etc..
It is true that I have gone on about the societal contract as the very thing that the police are trying to uphold, but I have yet to specifically identify what that is - the foundation for the principles of the United States Police comes from the U.S Constution  [3pg10]
, and the US Legal Code 
. Therefore, if any specific code of the police goes against the foundational text it is intrinsically not preferred compared to a code that adheres to the foundations of its goals.
Recalling the former citation - 
- we can bring our attention to the standards - multiple which there are - that the police hold themselves to:
"(a) Since police, as an agency of the criminal justice system, have a major responsibility for dealing with serious crime, efforts should continually be made to improve the capacity of police to discharge this responsibility effectively. It should also be recognized, however, that police effectiveness in dealing with crime is often largely dependent upon .the effectiveness of other agencies both within and outside the criminal justice system. Those in the system must work together through liaison, cooperation, and constructive joint effort. This effort is vital to the effective operation of the police and the entire criminal justice system
(b) To achieve optimum police effectiveness, the police should be recognized as having complex and multiple tasks to perform in addition to identifying and apprehending persons committing serious criminal offenses. Such other police tasks include protection of certain rights such as to speak and to assemble, participation either directly or in conjunction with other public and social agencies in the prevention of criminal and delinquent behavior, maintenance of order and control of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, resolution of conflict, and assistance to citizens in need of help such as a disabled person.
(c) Recommendations made in these standards are based on the view that this diversity of responsibility is likely to continue and, more importantly, that police authority and skills are needed to handle appropriately a wide variety of community problems."
The standards can be summarily broken down into the following:
- Effectively discharging responsibility in order to deal with crime
- Protecting the citizens of the U.S and their rights
- Assisting Citizens in daily life, such that is more than protection
ARG II - EFFECTS OF MILITARIZATION.
- 2A - Current state of militarization of the police
- 2B - How 2A interacts with the priorities of the police
Voters, recall the definition provided in DEFINE. for the "militarization of the police": "The militarization of police is the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, and Special Weapons and Tactics teams." Please bring your attention specifically to the second sentence in the definition, it is underlined for easier comprehension - it includes some of the equipment allowed into the police, though a further investigation is required - these are considered military - when are they are authorized for use by the military?
The most basic of infantrymen AIT (Advanced training) which proceeds basic training is a 4 week training course drilling in how to use firearms in general 
, which only occurs after a 13 hour-10 week basic training 
- that settles at around a 1240 hour training in order to be one of the most basic fighters in the military. In order to operate field artiliery, you must undergo an AIT that is 10 weeks long at the same hour-load 
. In contrast the average police adaemy dedicates only 168 hours to firearm training 
. This means that the average infrantry men
recieves about 2 times more instruction than police officers do on the subject, and field artilir such as submachine guns or grenade launchers require 5 times as much.
That is to say that Police Officers recieve relatively little training to use military equipment compared to the people who primarily train - they are also specialized in training as opposed to the Police's style, and about 1/5 police Academies don't even attempt to emulate a military model of training, and yet they reccieve military equipment same as any other department 
. This is not even considering the tactical use of military equipment on unarmed civilians - which is considered unethical and unconstitutional 
"Both the Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force against civilians outside of armed conflict except in very narrow circumstances: as a last resort to prevent an imminent attack that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury."
Therefore wide military tactical use against civilians is inherently against the foundation and standards of the U.S Constitution, which is the foundation of the U.S Police's priorities, therefore the use of militar equipment and tactical use ought to be removed from police reportoire against civilians. This would be reducing the militarization of the Police, well within my BoP, recall OBSERVATIONS. "As explained in INT. T. RES. above arguing that the militarization of the police should be reduced or removed are both valid ways to fulfill my burden of proof"
REB I - FREQUENCY OF EMERGEN.
"My opponent would have us demilitarize the police so they use the tactics and weapons that led to the tragedies in Columbine and North Hollywood, and leave us defenseless against the next terrorist that decides to do a Las Vegas style or Pulse nightclub style shooting. "
This is the central argument made by my opponent, but this fails to consider the unconstitutional
effects of military tactics on civilians, but also that this has no actual deterence against such occurences 
"However, when looking at military-grade weapons specifically, the same study found that receipt of these weapons had minimal or no deterrent impact on crime. Multiple studies have confirmed concerns about the militarization of police, showing that it results in law enforcement using higher levels of force
Con provides only two instances of such shooter events, ignoring the fact that there are dedicated non-police active shooter response team, that are specifically trained to deal with the situation 
, which the Police can call for emergency back up at any time. Furthermore, reducing the militarization of the police would not inhibit them from using such force in times of emergency - therefore this argument which already lack impact (as only two examples are cited against a foundation breach of what police should
do) does not even effect my BoP.
Con provides a history of the police and an argument that emergency shooter situations require police intervention, but fails to account that the opposing resolution does not mean complete anihiliation of the miliatary equipment, nor the fact of other agencies dealing with the situation - furthermore - Con has not yet spoken on the foundational error in using military tactics on civilians which are unarmed, civilians which they are actually charged to protect (Recall - ARG IA), therefore Con has not fulfilled his B.O.P in the slightest, whereas I have.