The Instigator
Voice_O_Reason
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Awesome-Sauce
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

Profiling teenagers

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Awesome-Sauce
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,757 times Debate No: 24068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Voice_O_Reason

Con

SOME police that deal with anyone between the ages of 15-25 are treating the young adults unjustly and are expecting them to do something illegal. I, personally have been stopped and patted down while walking down the street, in a park, alone, at noon, and looking normal. The police have been doing this for years and should be penalized for such behavior. Teens already have to pay higher car insurance, pay for college, work society's worst jobs, and extracurricular activities. The last thing they want is to be harassed by police. Also, the court system will never side with a "punk teen".
Awesome-Sauce

Pro

"SOME police that deal with anyone between the ages of 15-25 are treating the young adults unjustly"

Treating the young adults unjustly? Unsubstantiated claim.

"and are expecting them to do something illegal."

Well people between the ages of 15 and 25 do illegal stuff. It's a fact. Almost half of all violent crimes were commited by people under 25 years old. (http://ezinearticles.com...) So people that age do commit crimes.

"I, personally have been stopped and patted down while walking down the street, in a park, alone, at noon, and looking normal."

My opponent's sole personal experience doesn't mean that police everywhere profile teenagers and treat teenagers unfairly.

"The police have been doing this for years and should be penalized for such behavior."

A few examples of the police doing this please?

"Teens already have to pay higher car insurance, pay for college, work society's worst jobs, and extracurricular activities."

Ok what point does this make? Besides the fact that life isn't always fair?

"The last thing they want is to be harassed by police. Also, the court system will never side with a "punk teen"."

Well in America anyway everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and there is no reason to actually believe the court would treat a "punk teen" unfairly and give them an unfair trial. That is pure speculation on my opponent's part.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

profiling
- recording a person's behavior and analyzing psychological characteristics in order to predict or assess their ability in a certain sphere or to identify a particular group of people

The burden of proof lies on my opponent's shoulders, to prove that people between the ages of 15 and 25 are profiled unfairly by police. Up to now, the only real evidence he has tried to provide for his claim is his own personal experience. This does not provide good support if any support for his argument. For example, if I told you a certain restaraunt's sushi made me sick, does that mean you would stop eating sushi completely for the rest of your lfe? No, because my one personal experience isn't enough to carry that type of reaction.


Profiling is actually a necessary tool for police today. Sure, you can point out a few unfair circumstances where a few police departments have been wrong to profile, but let's look at profiling as a whole. Profiling is meant for police to PREVENT crime instead of just react to it. If you take a neighborhood that is usually dominated by teenage gangs, and you have a teenager walking down the street with certain characteristics of a gangster or certain features of a known gangster, then the police are going to stop that teen and make sure he's not ready to harm someone.

When profiling is used correctly, it is meant to prevent crime. In this debate the few corrupt police departments that might profile unfairly or take drastic measures when profiling cannot have a substantial impact, because the practice of profiling, profiling as a WHOLE, must be taken into account here. When a police department can profile correctly and fairly, they can essentially prevent crime rather than just react to it.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
Awesome-Sauce

Pro

Wow that hurt my feelings.... well not really

Since my opponent decided to insult me rather than actually participate in the debate, please give Pro the conduct point.

Extend arguments. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Awesome-Sauce

Pro

Con has not responded at all to my arguments.

Please vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
You could almost re-phrase the resolution to "I am a teenager and life is unfair."
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with con, but because of the last 2 rounds pro gets spelling/grammer and conduct. although con's points sucked, he had points, pro just had rebuttals. So con gets arguments. No sources for con, so pro gets that
Vote Placed by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Lost conduct for ad hominem, lost args for lack of attack on points, and also had no sources
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro obviously for the Con's weird insult as his role response in R2. On arguments, Con didn't really ever provide any, besides unproven claims and unverifiable anecdotal experience. Therefore he failed to uphold his BoP as instigator of the debate and loses automatically. On Pro's arguments, I feel they were rather unsubstantiated. However, since Con never responded my personal opinion I suppose doesn't matter. All in all, clear win to Pro.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's mistake was failing to state the resolution. I think he wanted to oppose, "Police should profile teenagers as potential criminals." That avoids having to prove how common it is. It's not clear what resolution Pro was affirming, but Con gave up without arguing.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con was rude. S/G to Pro because Con's Rounds 2 and 3 were not sentences. Arguments to Pro because Con resorted to personal attacks after his arguments were rebutted by Pro. Sources to Pro because Con had none.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was profiled by his mom.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Voice_O_ReasonAwesome-SauceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Trolling results in the following votes being true. Spelling was just about equal