Pro effectively seals his loss via concession by saying - "once a police officer that acts outside of what is to be enforced, that person by nature is no longer an officer."
Con catches this concession and refutes well, stating - "They concede police officers commit brutal acts, but argue once these brutal acts are undergone the aggressor is no longer a police officer, making police brutality impossible."
Essentially,
Pro's argument laid upon - "You're not an officer if you go against the law".
Con's argument laid upon - "An officer can still remain in his role after going against the law, making police brutality real".
This one's not even close....
Con wins by a mile.
Con catches this concession and refutes well, stating - "They concede police officers commit brutal acts, but argue once these brutal acts are undergone the aggressor is no longer a police officer, making police brutality impossible."
Essentially,
Pro's argument laid upon - "You're not an officer if you go against the law".
Con's argument laid upon - "An officer can still remain in his role after going against the law, making police brutality real".
This one's not even close....
Con wins by a mile.