The Instigator
GMDebater
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Thebigmouth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Police Profiling

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
GMDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 17354
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

GMDebater

Con

==Resolution==

This debate is about police profiling (or racial profiling). I will oppose police profiling and affirm that it should not be used; my opponent will argue for it.

==Definitions

Police profiling: Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual's race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual, unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime. OR a phrase often used in law enforcement or the court system to refer to the use of a person's ethnicity or race to decide on whether to engage in some type of legal proceeding. The act itself is very controversial and considered by many as illegal and inappropriate.

Source: http://www.debate.org...;

==Structure==



    • Round 1

        • This is the acceptance round. No arguments will be added.



    • Round 2

        • Con will present his first arguments and pro will present his first arguments.



    • Round 3

        • First rebuttals.



    • Round 4

        • Closing rebuttals/arguments.





==Burden of Proof==

The burden of proof will work this way: PRO will have to present arguments FOR police profiling and I will present my arguments against; CON will then present arguments AGAINST police profiling and we both must attempt to refute the opponent's claims.

==Rules==

1. Cite all sources
2. Be respectful
3. No vulgar language
4. Must abide by the structure
5. Failure to comply to the structure or rules results in an automatic loss
6. Forfeit results in an automatic loss

Good luck and let's have a good debate.
Thebigmouth

Pro

As much as I deplore profiling, because of the world we live in and the dangers that have been forced upon us as a nation we must be prepared for what ever happens.
It is sad that a small portion of one type of group and one type of religion has all but declared war upon my nation I and we must be prepared for that outcome.
So whether boarding a plane or train or any basic type of public pervance we must be diligent and keep a close eye upon what goes on around us...
I don't like having to single out a small minority group but it is better to be careful and on the alert than to have several hundred Americans or maybe even a greater number come into harms way because we were not prepared and as cautious as we should be and have to be.
Debate Round No. 1
GMDebater

Con

==Introduction==

Thank you for accepting this debate. I will point out that you lost already. Notice that the first round is for acceptance only. You have made some arguments. "Failure to comply to the structure or rules results in an automatic loss."
However, I will be lenient since this is your first debate. Please understand that you will have the last round for closing statements only and will not be allowed to post any rebuttals.

==Opening Arguments==

Contention 1: Racial profiling does not work


Racial profiling myth: It would work if only law enforcement agencies could use it--that by not using racial profiling, they're tying one hand behind their backs in the name of civil rights.

This simply isn't true:
  • An ACLU lawsuit uncovered police data indicating that while 73 percent of suspects pulled over on I-95 between 1995 and 1997 were black, black suspects were no more likely to actually have drugs or illegal weapons in their cars than white suspects.
  • According to the Public Health Service, approximately 70% of drug users are white, 15% are black, and 8% are Latino. But the Department of Justice reports that among thoseimprisoned on drug charges, 26% are white, 45% are black, and 21% are Latino
Contention 2: Racial profiling distracts law enforcement from more useful approaches

When suspects are detained based on suspicious behavior rather than race, police catch more suspects.

in 2005, a report by the Missouri attorney general is testimony to the INEFFECTIVENESS of racial profiling. White drivers, pulled over and searched on the basis of suspicious behaviour, were found to have drugs or other illegal material 24% of the time. Black drivers, on the other hand, pulled over or searched in a manner that reflected a pattern of racial profiling, were found to have drugs or other illegal materials only 19% of the time.

The effectiveness of searches, in Missouri and everywhere else, is reduced--not enhanced--by racial profiling. When racial profiling is used, officers end up wasting their limited time on innocent suspects.

Contention 3: Racial profiling prevents police from serving the ENTIRE community


What is the purpose of the law enforcement? They are responsible for protecting law-abiding citizens from criminals.

When a law enforcement agency practices racial profiling, it sends the message that the whites are assumed to be law-abiding citizens while blacks and Latinos are pre-assumed to be criminals. Law enfocement agencies should be in the business of protecting crime victims and finding justice--not by race, but by pure evidence!

Contention 4: Racial profiling is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Let's take a look at what the constitution has to say:

The fourth admendment GUARANTEES our right to protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. http://en.wikipedia.org...

What does this mean? This means that unless you have a probable cause to a crime, you cannot search someone. This is a constitutional right for all citizens--the 14th admendment backs that up as well.

I ask my opponent, is race ever a reasonable or probable cause to search someone? I think not.

Fun Statistics
According to the Public Health Service, 70% of drug users are white, 15% are black, 8% are Latino. BUT the Department of Justice reports that among those imprisoned on drug charges, 26% are white, 45% are black, and 21% are Latino. Is that fair?

Source: http://civilliberty.about.com...

==Cross Examination==

This is where I like to ask my opponent questions.
  1. Do you support our constitution to the fullest degree?
  2. Is race a probable cause to search someone?
  3. How would you like to be searched or accused of an illegal act because of your race?
  4. Is there any merrit to racial profiling?
  5. What is more effective, profiling based on suspicious behaviour and reasonable cause; or based on race?
That's all for this round. I now turn it over to pro.
Thebigmouth

Pro

I would be against profiling against blacks for any reason...
I am only in favor of to a very strict sense of profiling because a small group of a radical religious group has declared war on the U.S. I would want profiling protection against this group to prevent the types of things that have happened in the past from happening again.
Debate Round No. 2
GMDebater

Con

My opponent contends the following:

I would be against profiling against blacks for any reason...
I am only in favor of to a very strict sense of profiling because a small group of a radical religious group has declared war on the U.S. I would want profiling protection against this group to prevent the types of things that have happened in the past from happening again.

Note that I only used black people as an example. My opponent contends that we can have protection by discriminating against religious radicals. Sorry, but we have a freedom of religion in America.

Furthermore, there are peaceful Muslims. If you want to say that all Muslims are bad; then you are sadly mistaken. There are also some religious radicals in the Christian side as well and with other religions. Thus, you argument is fallacious.

How would discriminating against Arabs be good? Most Muslim Arabs live in the middle east--in fact, MOST Muslims are NOT Arabs! So therefore, your opinion is flawed even more.

Thank you; please vote con.
Thebigmouth

Pro

Thebigmouth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GMDebater

Con

Arguments extended. Please vote con as pro violated the rules.
Thebigmouth

Pro

Thebigmouth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GMDebater

Con

Extend my arguments and vote con!
Thebigmouth

Pro

Thebigmouth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
wrong place to post argument!
Posted by Thebigmouth 5 years ago
Thebigmouth
I do not remember using or stating the word "Arabs" in any of my supporting comments.
Yes it is true that not all radicals have declared war on the U.S. we still must be vigilant against attack.
Although profiling is not listed in our constitution we must remember attacks such as we had on Sept, 11, 2001.
So we must use those events such as this to insure a safety net is available for all of our citizens, no matter who they are.
Freedom of religion does not give any one the right, under religious freedom to bring harm to any group of people.
My debater says that there are radical conservative religious groups that do damage also. Please share with me one American religious group that is today or in the last 50 years going out of the U.S. and bombing, killing and bringing so much death and destruction to another country.
Using the skills and intelligence we have we are able to tell and recognize the specific types of people from any group that are trying to bring harm our nation...it is only this narrow group that we should be using extra care with.
I don't want them arrested or harassed in any way. Just use the technology that we currently have available to screen this group of adults and all other that are using our transportation systems.
Plus any package that is mailing from a country that we know is support of terrorists or any other group that is trying to bring harm to our country.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
GMDebaterThebigmouthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
GMDebaterThebigmouthTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I Sees a forfiet in your mouth.