The Instigator
AVoiceOfReason
Pro (for)
The Contender
warren42
Con (against)

Racial Profiling should be used

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AVoiceOfReason has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 215 times Debate No: 96702
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

AVoiceOfReason

Pro

I am taking the pro side of this debate. Any valid, factual argument may be used except for challenges to the legality of racial profiling. Round 1 is for acceptance, rounds 2 and 3 for sparring, and round 4 for closing arguments.
warren42

Con

I accept. Note to voters: rounds are on a 1,000 character limit
Debate Round No. 1
AVoiceOfReason

Pro

The numbers make the case for racial profiling. African Americans make up 13% of the population. Therefore they should be responsible for about 13% of all homicides, right? Nope, between 1980 and 2008 African Americans were responsible for a shocking 52% of murders. It is irresponsible and dangerous to not use racial profiling. The facts dictate that certain people are way, way more likely to commit certain crimes, so they must be policed appropriately.
warren42

Con

I. Intro
My opponent talks specifically about racial profiling (RP) of African Americans (AAs) in R2 but does not outline the debate as only AAs in R1. Therefore, (s)he must also defend RP against other races (Arabs for terrorism, whites for white-collar crimes, etc.).

II. RP Ineffective
RP is an ineffective way of combating crimes. It simply doesn't work. [1]

III. RP Harmful
RP erodes public trust in law enforcement and leads to crimes not being reported. [2]

IV. RP Unethical
RP targets innocent civilians because of a trait they cannot control. [3] All citizens should be granted equal protection under law (as per 14th Amendment) and also from the law. Note that this is not a legality argument (prohibited by Pro's R1 rules), but an ethical one. I'm not saying law enforcement shouldn't because the law is in place, but that they shouldn't because citizens should not be subjected to such horrid treatment, and just so happens to align with the law.

V. Sources
In comments due to character limit.
Debate Round No. 2
AVoiceOfReason

Pro

I will answer to each of my worthy opponents arguments:
1) Con writes that RP does not work. Well, it does [1][2].
2) Con writes that RP erodes public trust. To a certain extent that is true. However, more is gained from RP than what is lost due to non reporting. Additionally, the source con cited is talking about illegal immigrants. Well, I must say that they deserve to be profiled. If a Latino walks into the police station, in an area near the Mexico border, that person should be profiled, especially being that the border is very porous. Also worth mentioning: Cons source provided no proof or legitimate source for their claim.
3) Con writes that RP is unethical. Law enforcement is morally obligated to profile. It is quite clear that certain types of people are more likely to commit certain crimes [3][4]. Although some people will be inconvenienced by it, it is still a tool that cannot be wasted.

Sources are in comments due to character limit.
warren42

Con

Since Pro never really offered much in the first round, I'll defend my case.

I. Def. RP Ineffective
Neither of my opponent's sources apply. His first one is A. In Israel, when this debate is America-centered as implied by his R2 statements. and B. Only "works" because no hijackings have been attempted. It's easy to claim you're successfully preventing a crime when in reality the crime isn't even being attempted. Prefer my evidence which uses Harvard studies to my opponent's op-ed. His second source is actually more fit for my argument; it seems to be skeptical of RP.

II. Def. of RP Harmful
Pro concedes erosion of trust. Big harm. Not just true with illegal immigrants. [1]

III. Def. of RP Unethical
Law enforcement is NOT "morally obligated to profile." Rather, law enforcement is obligated to act on reasonable suspicion, regardless of race. They are morally obligated to protect and enforce law equally for all citizens. No citizen should ever be deprived of rights based on race.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by magusat999 1 month ago
magusat999
AVoiceOfReason's Round2, point 3 statistics (http://www.bjs.gov...) are lacking quantification. A further look into that statistic at the same site reveals those numbers are reflective of drug related homicides. In order for that data to be valid for ALL people subject to RP, it must be proven that ALL people affected are under the same conditions as the people in the period of time specified.

That period was the crack cocaine epidemic and it's after effect (dying down) period (https://en.wikipedia.org...). it is not reflective of today's conditions - nor was it reflective of the entire African American race at that time - which brings up another counter-point:

It isn't justifiable or even legal to apply a standard or practice to entire group based on the actions of a sub-group, no matter what the "percentage". If a person is innocent before proven guilty in a court of law, then that person is innocent until such time, and the actions of others in his / her "race" has no bearing on the presumption of guilt or level or suspicion against that INDIVIDUAL, nor does it make others in that race more likely to commit crimes, hence the need to be more critical and create more severe tactics to "discover" what they might do..
Posted by warren42 1 month ago
warren42
I will start working on this in an hour or so
Posted by AVoiceOfReason 1 month ago
AVoiceOfReason
We shall see about that, Quadrunner. And please, don't come to a conclusion before a debate. It stinks of ignorance.
Posted by Quadrunner 1 month ago
Quadrunner
Lol, opening statement in round two and you have opened yourself up for utter and complete defeat.

Good luck, you'll need it.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.