Racial Profiling should be used
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.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||1 month ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||215 times||Debate No:||96702|
Debate Rounds (4)
I accept. Note to voters: rounds are on a 1,000 character limit
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. 
III. RP Harmful
RP erodes public trust in law enforcement and leads to crimes not being reported. 
IV. RP Unethical
RP targets innocent civilians because of a trait they cannot control.  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.
In comments due to character limit.
1) Con writes that RP does not work. Well, it does .
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 . 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.
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. 
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.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.