The Instigator
sorc
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
rulshok
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Police Should Not Racially Profile

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
sorc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,970 times Debate No: 7543
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

sorc

Con

Unless my opponent has any objections, for this debate we will use the following definitions (both according to Dictionary.com):

Racial Profiling: the consideration of race when developing a profile of suspected criminals; by extension, a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups when seeking suspected criminals

Racism: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

As my opponent is Pro and has the burden of proof (that is, if the reasons for and against the resolution are equal, then Pro should lose), I will allow him/her to go first. I would ask that Pro not post an argument in Round 4 to make up for this. In this way, this debate is a traditional 3 round debate.

Note: In the resolution, "Racially Profile" is referring to racial profiling.
rulshok

Pro

First of all I want to thank my opponent, and the viewers that will be reading this debate. It is sure to be intelligent and revealing. Let me jump right into my first contention.

1. Racial Profiling is a form of racism and discrimination
Today, the vast majority of the US views racial discrimination as morally incorrect. Racial Profiling is directed specifically at African-Americans and other minorities, because these people are supposedly more likely to commit crimes. This assumption, that African-Americans are more likely to commit crimes, is a disguised form of racism. What the police are doing when they racially profile, is looking at minority groups and flagging these groups over others.

I will offer up this first contention as the primary argument for my case, and will introduce further arguments in my second round.

Thank You, and vote in the negation
Debate Round No. 1
sorc

Con

Before I begin, I would like you to consider this theoretical situation. Say (and I am completely making this up) that new research has proven that people with blue eyes are 8 times more likely to rob someone than those with brown eyes. After a new robbery is discovered, should the police have a higher suspicion towards blue eyed people? Since the police would enforce the law faster and more effectively, they should.

My main argument for this debate will be that racial profiling is beneficial when enforcing the law. To understand my argument, I would encourage all to look at race as simply a feature of a human being. If statistics have proven that a certain race is more likely to commit a crime such as a robbery, then police should work off of that information.

For example, new research has proven that African Americans are 8 times more likely to rob someone than people of other races [1]. After a new robbery is discovered, should the police have a higher suspicion towards African-Americans? Since the police would enforce the law faster and more effectively, they should.

Consider this second analogy: If the police obtain information informing them that the suspect is probably over the height of 6 feet, should they spend less time looking for people under 6 feet and more time looking for people over 6 feet? Of course they should.

This can be directly translated to race. Say the police receive information informing them that a Caucasian is probably the culprit. Should they spend less time looking for people of other races and more time looking for
Caucasians? Yes, they should, because they would more effectively enforce the law.

Simply put, since race is merely a characteristic of a human being, it is logically and morally sound that police should use statistical information to aid them in solving a crime.

Now, to address my opponent's (first) contention:

"Today, the vast majority of the US views racial discrimination as morally incorrect."

In essence, this is the only argument part of my opponent's contention. The surrounding few sentences are merely an explanation of racial profiling, albeit in a disapproving tone.

Anyway, if it is morally correct to use information pertaining to a certain characteristic (such as eye color, hair color, height, etc), why is it not morally correct when one looks towards race? Essentially, by saying race is a more important attribute of a person than anything else, then the argument is actually racist.

In short, what I am saying is that the police of the United States *should* racially profile if it is statistically backed up. Exempting race from other attributes of a person is racist, and will only hinder the efforts of the police in enforcing the law of the United States of America.

[1] http://www.nc-f.org...
rulshok

Pro

So, my opponent begins by saying that racial profiling is beneficial when enforcing the law. Even if this were true, which it isn't, (addressed later) it is still racist and a morally incorrect action to take.
Say that a dictator kills ten people to attempt to squash a revolution and scare the people into submission. While this may be beneficial in enforcing the law, is it morally correct? The obvious answer is no.
I also want to address a key point in which my opponent is gravely misinformed. Racial profiling is not simply searching for only Asians when the police receive a description of the culprit saying he is Asian. What Racial Profiling ACTUALLY does, is categorize people into racial groups before any crime is even committed. So what essentially happens is that police go after, say, an African-American living in a poor region of town ahead of a Caucasian criminal. This in fact hinders the law enforcement officers because they first go after members of a certain race before others.
My opponent also states that I am in fact being racist by stating that race is a more important aspect of a human then all other aspects. This argument is once again based on his false perception of racial profiling, which I have already addressed. I will also add that people have not been lynched and killed based on height or eye color, so this is a very offensive subject for those that have been subject of racial discrimination.

My opponents false perception of racial profiling has already lost him this debate.

Thank you, and vote Affirmation (sorry about the Negation typo in my first speech :D)
Debate Round No. 2
sorc

Con

Okay so obviously my opponent misunderstood my arguments so I'll clarify by addressing his points.

"it is still racist and a morally incorrect action to take.
Say that a dictator kills ten people to attempt to squash a revolution and scare the people into submission. While this may be beneficial in enforcing the law, is it morally correct? The obvious answer is no."

Why is racism (predisposition to a certain race) bad when it is statistically proven? Why is it morally incorrect?
Also, that analogy is blatanly fallacious, and we are not dealing with anything even close to that analogy, so I must ask that the analogy be ignored.

"Racial profiling is not simply searching for only Asians when the police receive a description of the culprit saying he is Asian."

Of course racial profiling isn't this. I'm saying that since police start off with a statistic (such as that African-Americans are 8 times more likely to rob someone than other races), police should start off with that in mind. Essentially, the statistic is this "information" that police are receiving.

"So what essentially happens is that police go after, say, an African-American living in a poor region of town ahead of a Caucasian criminal. This in fact hinders the law enforcement officers because they first go after members of a certain race before others."

Why is going after members of a certain race before others bad? It is a statistically sound approach that will produce better results. For the sake of argument, say the only two races were African-American and Caucasian. If African-Americans are more likely to commit a certain crime than Caucasian, then by going to the African-American first the police *will* see a net decrease in the amount of time it takes to find a criminal.

"My opponent also states that I am in fact being racist by stating that race is a more important aspect of a human then all other aspects. This argument is once again based on his false perception of racial profiling, which I have already addressed."

No it is not based on a false perception of racial profiling. Take this example:
John Smith is a 6'3 Caucasian man with blue eyes, brown hair, long arms, long legs, and a tattoo who belongs to a gym and weighs 200 pounds.

If a person was more likely to commit a certain crime based on non-racial attributes, it is considered acceptable for the police to utilize this information. Why is it different for race? Why are you placing race above other characteristics?

"I will also add that people have not been lynched and killed based on height or eye color, so this is a very offensive subject for those that have been subject of racial discrimination."

I am not saying that police should lynch those of a certain race, I am saying that they should direct their searches in a manner in accordance with statistical proof.

Seeing as my opponent has not even addressed 1) why using statistics to aid the police force is wrong or 2)why race is more important than other characteristics of a human, I urge you to vote Con.
rulshok

Pro

I would first like to address my case, then I will move on to my opponents case, ending with several reasons as to why I have won this debate.

My opponent begins by saying that racism is not morally incorrect. This is outrageous. In the history of the United States, we have fought against racism with great vigor. So, in making this argument, my opponent is in fact supporting racism.
If we go along with my opponents proposed path of racism, it will only lead to increases in racism and more acute cases of racism, which will eventually send the US into a backwards spiral contrary to everything we have worked for.

My opponent completely misunderstood my mention of lynching, which did not say that police should lynch members of a certain race, but said that people HAVE been lynched on the matter of race, which shows that it is a more defining characteristic of a human being in this case.

My opponents entire case bases around his statistics argument, which states that the police should be able to use any statistics to aid them.
Using these racial statistics massively inconveniences all members of the race that has a statistic stating that it is more likely to commit crimes. Police are going to stop members of this race more, they are going to commence more searches, etc. This is a blatant case of racism, because they are discriminating against the race with more criminal statistics. Innocent civilians of this race are being held accountable for something that other members of their race are doing, which is wrong.
I would also like to remind the readers of our US constitution, which guarantees equal treatment to all US citizens. In this case, the constitution is not upheld when the police discriminate against members of a certain race.

There are two main reasons as to why I urge a vote for Pro:

1. I have shown that racial profiling is a form of racism, and that racism is an incorrect action to take. The Constitution reinforces this and shows that my position on racism is in fact the correct one.

2. My opponent has taken a pro-Racism stance, therefore supporting discrimination. I quote my opponent: "Why is racism (predisposition to a certain race) bad when it is statistically proven? Why is it morally incorrect?" It is morally incorrect in the same way that slavery is morally incorrect, and this is a fundamental part of American philosophy.

For these reasons, I urge a strong vote for Pro

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
sorc

Con

I shall begin by rebutting my opponent's position and then move onto my own.

"My opponent begins by saying that racism is not morally incorrect. This is outrageous. In the history of the United States, we have fought against racism with great vigor. So, in making this argument, my opponent is in fact supporting racism.
If we go along with my opponents proposed path of racism, it will only lead to increases in racism and more acute cases of racism, which will eventually send the US into a backwards spiral contrary to everything we have worked for."

First of all, yes I of course acknowledge that what I am advocating is within the realm of racism. HOWEVER, racism nowadays holds an extremely negative connotation. By saying I am supporting this, I am *not* advocating unprovoked, unjustified, or unreasonable discrimination against any race. This is what, as my opponent puts it, we have fought against racism with great vigor and will send US in a backwards spiral. What I *am* advocating is the utilization of just, reasonable methods to aid police force, which is not negative at all.

"My opponent completely misunderstood my mention of lynching, which did not say that police should lynch members of a certain race, but said that people HAVE been lynched on the matter of race, which shows that it is a more defining characteristic of a human being in this case."

Lynching and its history is quite irrelevant to the discussion of legal criminal investigation. Thus "this case" is not relevant to this debate.

"My opponents entire case bases around his statistics argument, which states that the police should be able to use any statistics to aid them.
Using these racial statistics massively inconveniences all members of the race that has a statistic stating that it is more likely to commit crimes. Police are going to stop members of this race more, they are going to commence more searches, etc."
That is the idea. It doesn't massively inconvenience them, its just increased law enforcement.

"This is a blatant case of racism, because they are discriminating against the race with more criminal statistics."
Exactly.

"Innocent civilians of this race are being held accountable for something that other members of their race are doing, which is wrong."
They are not being held accountable, police suspicions are simply being increased. How is this wrong? You seem to operate under the assumption that all forms of racism, even socially beneficial ones, are undeniably wrong and fail to provide any contentions as to why this is the case.

"I would also like to remind the readers of our US constitution, which guarantees equal treatment to all US citizens. In this case, the constitution is not upheld when the police discriminate against members of a certain race."

I assume here that my opponent is referring to Ammendment 14, though he does not say. This ammendment states that "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This phrase means that a law cannot apply to one person and not the other, and has nothing to do with the matter of evidence-based criminal investigation. My opponent's argument is evidently fallacious .

"I have shown that racial profiling is a form of racism, and that racism is an incorrect action to take. The Constitution reinforces this and shows that my position on racism is in fact the correct one."
You have shown that it is a form of racism, true, but racism under the agreed upon definition should hold no negative connotations; furthermore, I agreed that it is racism, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. You have not proven that racism is an incorrect action to take, but rather assume that it is without any reasons. As I have noted, your argument regarding the Constitution is fallacious, so in essence, this entire voting point my opponent professes is null.

"My opponent has taken a pro-Racism stance, therefore supporting discrimination. I quote my opponent: "Why is racism (predisposition to a certain race) bad when it is statistically proven? Why is it morally incorrect?""
Again, you are simply stating facts over and over and hoping that they can form into an argument by yourself. This is not an argument, as I willingly admit that it is discriminatory based SOLELY on the definition, NOT on the connotations.

"It is morally incorrect in the same way that slavery is morally incorrect, and this is a fundamental part of American philosophy."
This is a fallacious analogy: slavery was for no reason, racial profiling is for a very valid reason. You say that a fundamental part of American philosophy, yet provide no proof, leaving this argument incredible. Again, this voting point is negligible.

As I have shown, it is logical and moral to use statistics to aid law enforcement, regardless of the nature of such statistics.Throughout this debate, my opponent has constantly failed to provide an argument and assumed that what I was contending was inherently incorrect. Because he has failed to provide any valid argument or rebuttal to my contention, I must ask for a Con ballet.

Thank you.
rulshok

Pro

rulshok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by zippo 7 years ago
zippo
test test
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
The burden of proof thing was really just a side note... to be honest I just didn't want to go first =) Technically, since the resolution is phrased as such, Pro must provide reasons why police should not racially profile. Basically, if his reasons are fully negated or canceled out then Con wins.
Posted by zippo 7 years ago
zippo
Thats what i meant.
Posted by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
no, the rules are a good idea. But his limits are not.
Posted by zippo 7 years ago
zippo
too many rules.. Just do a damn debate. jesus
Posted by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
I would take this, but I don't like one part of it, the burden of proof part of it. Why should the Pro automatically have a greater burden? If everything is equal, then you look at who did the better job. There will never be an equal debate. That's the whole point.

I would take this, but I am at odds with the burden of proof. Even if you wanted to make that claim, that Pro has the burden, you still have to prove it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
sorcrulshokTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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