The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
ChevySdyme99
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Police profiling is the devil!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 3697
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

Police profiling is evil!!!
We have ended segregation in America. The Civil Rights Movement is over. To advance police profiling advances the mentality that blacks and hispanics are bad people. Furthering segregation...which is bad.

Police profiling is harassment. If I'm black and not doing much of anything wrong, why are the police harassing me? Whatever happened to "promoting the domestic tranquility?"

Which brings me to my next point. It is unconstitutional and un American. Racism is not American and the constitution does not want the police harassing innocent people.

Police profiling makes police focus on minorities who are not doing much of anything when they could be focusing on other crimes.

Point blank: Police profiling is the devil!!!
ChevySdyme99

Con

I think police profiling is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I look at police profiling as almost the same as TSA. Is it an inconvenience? Yes it is. I have actually been pulled over and searched and "harassed" by local law enforcement...but nothing came of it...you know why? cause i wasn't doing anything wrong. So, now i ask you this, Take the same situation but i have a kilo of cocaine, weed, LSD or whatever. Now, he just made an arrest and took another drug and drug dealer/user off the street. So, back to the little analogy i am working on. TSA will randomly screen people i.e. check there bags etc. And you D@mn well couple of white, black or Hispanics didn't go trying to blow up planes or anything, yet they still get searched at some TSA checkpoints. But I personally would rather be inconvenienced at TSA checkpoints they check me all they want but you know why i don't mind the inconvenience? Because once again i am not doing anything wrong. So, if you aren't doing anything wrong whats the big deal. Its not like there is some kinda of consiparcary out to get you guys. And if you get pulled over or "harassed" by a cop and the finds something on you and you get arrested good. That is just another point for police profiling.!
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

You had one point: It is an inconvenience but it stops crime.

How about this: America is a country that is supposedly based on equality. If you only target one group for a crime, that is discrimination and reineforces that racism is alright. Racism and prejudice is not alright but our government is reinforcing the exact opposite, that racism is good and fine.

It is simply a horrible inconveinence that no innocent person should have to endure.

Our police could be working on substantial leads. How about going after suspects instead of potential criminals because: They're black, they must have done the stick up? Our police are already overstretched in a lot of American towns. Why use them for the job of searching for people who they have no substantial reason to believe a crime was committed?

If a white person decides to blow up a plane, then what? White people are just as capable to blow up planes as middle Easterns. And if police or the TSA is only searching Middle Easterns, look whats happened...one less plane and 300 less passengers. Thank you police profiling.
ChevySdyme99

Con

True America is based on equality, However, i could argue that the particular group brought it on themselves. Your issue shouldn't be with the "police profiling" it should be with your peers that have gone before you and have broken the law and brought this negative attention on themselves. For example, If you never had an orange before and then tried an orange and it was rotten and tasted horrible, then you would assume that all oranges are bad tasting.
Now, in this example you are the police and the orange is one of these particular groups. That one orange stained your image of oranges. And police profiling does not necessarily mean they target a particular race, for example, it seems like most drug dealers want to drive flashy cars with big rims or expensive jewelry. With that being said Some one driving a tinted out Mercedes with big rims in the ghetto would probably raise a few eye brows. So, police are trained to investigate things out of the norm. And the government isn't supporting racism, I don't know if you ever sat in on a police briefing, But they don't say check out every black-man. Or make sure you stay on your police profiling. They would put something out along the lines of be on the look out for a 5'9", hispanic male, etc. To say the government encourages rasicm is flat out lie. Police officer get paid the same weather they make 0 arrests or 1000.

I do believe it isn't that bad of an inconvience, it takes what maybe 5-10 min out of your time, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind the brief delay.

And you say police could be working on "substantial" leads. Apparently you don't know how any government installation works. It isn't as easy as just pulling guys off the street to put them in an office to investigate, they need to be trained, training takes time and money and most would probably argue that a large "ground force" is more nessecary than having a huge "admin/investigation force". And true police are overstretched but then again i bring up the point, would you rather have people in the streets getting crime off the streets or have them back at the PD investigating.

True but how many white people blown up airplanes in a terrorist attack, true a white man has been behind bombings and even school shootings. But look at the number of people of a middle eastern background that has done crimes like this as opposed to white people. And keep in mind the TSA doesn't only search middle eastern men. I have seen a man with a turban go through and then a little old lady get searched. Just like how i a white, male was pulled over cause my car resembled that of a "trouble maker". Keep in mind a cop who pulls you over for no reason really can't use anything he finds against you. I believe this happened in South Carolina. An officer pulled a man over and found a ton of drugs, the man wasn't convicted cause the cop pulled him over for no reason. Now, in California it is illegal to have you front windows tinted, and that is what i was pulled over for, but thankfully not ticketed.
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

True America is based on equality, However, i could argue that the particular group brought it on themselves. Your issue shouldn't be with the "police profiling" it should be with your peers that have gone before you and have broken the law and brought this negative attention on themselves.
+ Oh my God! That is the the single most ignorant, and racist comment I've ever seen on this website. You just said: If blacks werent so dangerous, they wouldnt be targeted. This is a racist stereotype that is not sufficient for police to use for arrests.

For example, If you never had an orange before and then tried an orange and it was rotten and tasted horrible, then you would assume that all oranges are bad tasting.
+ Aaah! So if you see one black criminal, then all blacks are criminals? Even if a large portion of blacks are criminals does not mean that all blacks are criminals. This is just simply racist.

Now, in this example you are the police and the orange is one of these To say the government encourages rasicm is flat out lie.
+ No. Its not. The police are funded by the government. If the police start targeting particular races because of stereotypes of that race, that is racism and it is by the government. You've given no reason as to why that is not racism supported by our government.

I do believe it isn't that bad of an inconvience, it takes what maybe 5-10 min out of your time, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind the brief delay.
+ Even 1 minute of time of harassment is wrong, especially if it is because of your race. I have never comitted a crime so why should my government harass me? And what if I'm on my way to the airport and I'm late? Thats a huge inconvenience.

And you say police could be working on "substantial" leads. Apparently you don't know how any government installation works. It isn't as easy as just pulling guys off the street to put them in an office to investigate, they need to be trained, training takes time and money and most would probably argue that a large "ground force" is more nessecary than having a huge "admin/investigation force". And true police are overstretched but then again i bring up the point, would you rather have people in the streets getting crime off the streets or have them back at the PD investigating.
+ This entire paragraph is simply ridiculous. If there are leads to one suspect or one area is particularly dangerous, then why should our police be out harassing people who have dont any reason to be a suspect? They should be out stopping robberies and substantial crimes. Not harassing innocent people.

True but how many white people blown up airplanes in a terrorist attack,
+ And if only one decides to blow up a plane, we have police profiling to thank for letting him.

I have seen a man with a turban go through and then a little old lady get searched.
+ Then that is not police profiling! Why'd you bring up the TSA? Just like how

Keep in mind a cop who pulls you over for no reason really can't use anything he finds against you.
+ Why go through the trouble of harassing innocent people then?

I believe this happened in South Carolina. An officer pulled a man over and found a ton of drugs, the man wasn't convicted cause the cop pulled him over for no reason. Now, in California it is illegal to have you front windows tinted, and that is what i was pulled over for, but thankfully not ticketed.
+ ...So...
ChevySdyme99

Con

Cops aren't specifically out to get blacks or any other group they are going after crime it just so happens that African Americans just seem to commit more of them. You call it a "sterotype" I simply call it a "Trend". Okay, take it as being racist but here is a little stat. And no i don't think EVERY black man is dangerous and going to commit a crime, I just like to point out they on AVERAGE they commit more crime than white people.

"In 1995, one-third of African American men between the ages of 20 and 29 were under some form of criminal justice control (in prison, on parole or probation).[2] Some statistics report that African Americans are at least seven times more likely to murder, be murdered and/or incarcerated than white Americans.[3]"

^ The Punishing Decade: Prison and Jail Estimates at the Millennium. Daniel Macallair, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Last accessed September 23, 2006.

^ Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Last accessed September 23, 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And for the orange analogy I said before, just like how you had one bad orange doesn't mean all oranges are bad...Same goes on this particular issue. I am not saying every black man is a criminal. But because of the one experience your image of oranges are tarnished.

Once again, I would like to point out the police aren't out to get you or your race. They are funded by state government and focus on groups that seem to have a higher crime rate. And I don't mean necessarily mean groups as in race. For example high school kids have parties, where often times there is under age drinking. Which just so happens to be a crime. Therefore, if they see a bunch of high school kids at one house and it seems like a party is going on and the cops have probable cause to believe there are laws being broken then they should break up the party and enforce the law. And to say they will harass you for NO reason i don't believe. They aren't just going to pull you over and see what you are up too, you would have to have given him a reason to pull you over i.e. a burned out tail light, not using blinker etc. That was the reason behind the story about the cop SC. The cop had no reason to pull over the man, therefore all charges were dropped. Same with you, if you aren't doing anything wrong YOU WON'T GET BOTHERED!!

And you keep referring to it as harassment...Do you consider the checkpoints the cops set up to catch drunk drivers harassment? That is a brief delay and not everyone drinks and drives yet everyone is inconvenienced by there peers actions.

Again, the TSA example i was using to point out that because of actions of others, we all now need to be inconvinced at the airport, and look at how many terrorists attacks have happened since then.

I am not arguing the fact there maybe racist cops that may have a thing out to get a particular race or group. I am arguing that police profile in itself is a good effective way to fight crime. I am not saying an innocent person should be pulled over and "checked on" But that isn't the case. Police profiling makes sense, Pay more attention to the groups that are causing the crime.

VOTE CON!!!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Chevysdyme, would you like to join my group, 'the people that don't negate the resolution?'
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ChevySdyme99 9 years ago
ChevySdyme99
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Nicholl.123 9 years ago
Nicholl.123
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by garybot 9 years ago
garybot
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CongressmanDrew 9 years ago
CongressmanDrew
notpolicydebategodChevySdyme99Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03