The Instigator
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
TheMrkanyewest01
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Racial Profiling

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheMrkanyewest01
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,134 times Debate No: 23784
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

I think I have set this up with a fairly reasonable debate structure. If anyone has any issue with it, do not hesitate to mention it.

I have thought for a long time that racial profiling was bad. I now think that it might not be. Since I'm still on the fence on this issue, I thought a good, old-fashioned debate might help settle my mind.

Obviously I will argue in FAVOR of racial profiling, and whoever accepts will argue AGAINST. The setting for this debate is the United States of America.

Rules:

1. No semantics. I know what semantics are, you know what semantics are, and the voters know what semantics are. NO SEMANTICS. Using semantics counts as a forfeit of all seven points.

2. Use reasonable grammar/spelling. Again, you, I, and the voters know what this is. A few misspellings are fine, a few grammar mistakes are fine, something that looks like a foreign language isn't. Voters, do not bother voting on this unless someone's grammar was atrocious. If one person's spelling/grammar was better marginally, it doesn't matter.

3. A forfeit is not an automatic loss. It IS an automatic forfeit of the conduct point, and it is reasonable to assume that whoever forfeited will lose arguments as well. However, if my opponent forfeits after making a brilliant counterargument while I spend all my rounds posting "herp derp", I should lose. Obviously.

4. I will assume the burden of proof. If my defense of my arguments is superior to my opponent's criticisms of them, then I win. Don't vote for my opponent just because you were unconvinced by my arguments. Do vote for my opponent if they defeated my arguments.

5. Sources are nice. Please provide them. Voters, like spelling/grammar, disregard if both are nearly equal. If I cite my second cousin and my opponent cites the Oxford English Dictionary though, I assume it would be logical to give sources to my opponent. As a general rule, statistics and studies at the very least should be sourced.

Debate Structure:

1. Acceptance.
2. Constructive for me, Con can make a constructive case if she/he desires, else they merely rebut.
3. I defend my argument, my opponent criticizes it. I may introduce new arguments here. My opponent may as well.
4. Conclusions. No new arguments from either side.

Good luck!
TheMrkanyewest01

Con

I accept your challenge AlwaysMoreThanYou

Well,to begin my argument i would like to state that i believe that racial profiling does not work on many levels. I would state that racial profiling is wrong morally based on it's profiling of Middle Easterners,African Americans,Hispanics and various other ethnicity's.I also believe that racial profiling may be considered by some an act of antagonization.Racial profiling does nothing but promote hostilities and creates tensions between the races.It creates various sociological problems and a turbulent enviornment.What follows shall be my first argument.

Racial profiling simply does not work:
Racial profiling just doesn't work ask any person and there are also various cultural examples to support my point.To comedians to rappers and organizations like the NAACP all strongly oppose racial profiling.It actually backfires on law enforcement and the real crocks get away.And example in an article by Lisa Wade she explained better the failure of racial profiling There's a chart that goes with my her article and can be viewed in this website:
http://thesocietypages.org...
Well the first chart showed that Black and Hispanic drivers are more likely to be stopped by Los Angeles Police than White drivers.And the second chart in the article shows that, when stopped, if searched, police are more likely to find weapons and drugs on Whites than on either Blacks or Hispanics.What this proofs is the utter failure and incapability of law enforcement to spot criminal activity regardless of race.I would also like to state that racial profiling clearly is opposed to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution which reads that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Racial profiling is morally wrong:
I cannot stress this point enough racial profiling is morally and ethically wrong.It degrades the American psyche by treating its citizens as second class citizens.It generalizes,it paints with broad strokes that minorities are criminals and worthy of profiling.Not to mention that profiling by The United States is Hypocritical a country that promotes liberty,freedom and ideals of justice should not violate it's citizens civil liberties,such as racial profiling does.Now,i will give a now famous example about racial profiling gone bad.Trayvon Martin a normal 17 year old African American teenager was staying at a gated community in Sanford, Fla. when he was killed by George Zimmerman.Zimmerman reportedly before the killing called 911 to report a "a real suspicious guy," a "black male" walking around and continued with his profiling that eventually lead to the death of Trayvon Martin,a defenceless teenager wearing a hoodie and holding a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles(The case is still pending).if that does not make the case for the wrongness of racial profiling i don't what will.
Debate Round No. 1
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro


Round 1 was supposed to be for acceptance, but that's fine. I'll continue with the format I outlined in Round 1, which is why I will not touch any of my opponent's contentions this round. I am not dropping them.

Contention One: Racial Profiling is logical



Think about it. If you have just received news that a someone was murdered and have several eyewitnesses confirm that the murderer was wearing hot pink shorts and a neon orange t-shirt, it isn't particularly logical to go around stopping anyone you see on the off chance they might be the murderer. Sure the murderer may have changed his clothes, sure some random person might have had the ill luck to be wearing the same color clothing as the murderer. However, by focusing in on information about the criminal, you increase your chances of catching them. If a police officer hears how a woman murdered someone, he shouldn't cuff the guy right next to him. If a police officer hears how a midget just robbed a bank, she shouldn't arrest the seven foot NBA star across the road. Already it is widely accepted that information about criminals (vehicle colors, outfits, builds, gender, distinguishing marks) be used to catch criminals, but for some reason race is a controversial criterion.

Contention Two: Racial Profiling is fair



How hard should it be to prove your innocence if you're actually innocent? How hard should it be to prove your guilt if you're actually innocent? Even if you are profiled for something you didn't do, stopping racial profiling entirely is taking a step in the wrong direction. Some might contend that it is unjust, but is it unjust when someone is pulled over for driving a car that looks like an at-large criminal's? No, it is accepted as necessary for the public safety. If police cannot use all the information available to them to attempt to catch criminals, it will decrease their effectiveness [1].

Contention Three: Pulling people over is good



A British study showed that there is an inverse relationship between people pulled over and crime [2].

Contention ???:



This isn't really a contention, but some evidence I couldn't make into a contention. Some might call it a prebuttal. Although statistics often show minorities pulled over more often than whites, it is because the crime rates for those racial groups are higher. Often the minorities are even pulled over less than one would think when crime statistics were provided [3][4][5].

I may expand my arguments later. Note that sources 3, 4, and 5 were all written by the same person. Also, my formatting was ruined and for that I apologize.

Sources:





TheMrkanyewest01

Con

I shall now rebuttal your claims,
first of,what you described in your first example was eyewitness description.I don't believe anyone is against that.If
someone was to rob me and if he so happens to be African American well I'm obligated to provide that information in order for the police to capture him.Racial profiling is wrong when someone hasn't even committed a crime and their either being followed or watched based on their race.And your second argument does not hold up either and I will explain why.Racial profiling is not fair and your example is grotesque and laughable,your example is like saying you can swim well why don't you swim to the bottom of the ocean how hard can it be if you can swim,it is very hard to prove one's innocence,if your the only one aware of your innocence,you enter a Courtroom where no one knows the truth and to prove that truth can be very difficult.In fact there isn't a clear statistic only estimates and speculation on wrongful convictions, [1] Because the sprawling criminal justice system is a patchwork of federal, state, county, and municipal courts, prisons, and jails each with its own system (or lack thereof) of record-keeping and data-reporting "we don't even know how many people are convicted, let alone wrongfully convicted, of crimes in the United States. "We don't even have a denominator," says University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett. "But the wrongful convictions we do know about suggest that there's a big problem." In fact it is estimated that 1 percent of the US prison population, approximately 20,000 people, are falsely convicted.As for your claim I haven't found any data to dispute your claim of crime rates for racial groups being higher than whites,but if so I will argue that is another issue a broader sociological issue that needs to be addressed as well.And I would refer to my graph,that I used in the beginning of this debate.It [2] shows that, when stopped, if searched, police are more likely to find weapons and drugs on Whites than on either Blacks or Hispanics.

Cited references:
1.http://www.motherjones.com...
2.http://thesocietypages.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

Right, I'll now defend my contentions and attack the arguments of my opponent.

Contention Two: Racial Profiling is fair

It appears my opponent did not read my source. That is fine, because he was in no way obligated to. However it did say in my source "Consider the gang officers in Foothill Division, where I work. Each day, they go out in the field looking for Latino males of a certain age who dress in a particular way, have certain tattoos on their bodies and live in an area where street gangs flourish.". Is this racial profiling? Yes, but is under grounds for reasonable suspicion. Race is not the only criterion, but is is considered. Also, you don't have to prove your innocence, that's the entire point of the United States judicial system's "innocent until proven guilty". All statistics in defense of your point regarding innocence is extrapolated and hypothetical, however it is regardlessly highly unlikely that you'd even enter court after being racially profiled unless there was significant other evidence against you. How many people do you think have ever been arrested solely for their race in the past decade?

I will also rejustify my first contention.

Contention One: Racial Profiling is logical

When was the last time you heard of an 80-year old Swedish grandmother robbing a store at gunpoint? What about the last time you heard of a teenage black man doing the same?

My opponent's graph

First of all, the graph misleadingly does not mention what types of drugs (or their legality) and what types of weapons (or their legality). It also does not mention arrests or convictions. Here is a counter-graph that shows white drivers pulled over more, but black drivers searched and arrested more [1].

Sociological Issue

My opponent may be right about this, but it cannot be denied that regardless of the reasons, crime is more often caused by minorities. Therefore it makes logical sense that on the balance, a minority is more likely to be a criminal.

Sources:
1. http://www.themaneater.com...;
TheMrkanyewest01

Con

And now my rebuttal,
Yes,it does seem that L.A police officers do use ethnicity for their criterion for criminal activity.And yes, I do believe description of race when a crime has been committed is a useful tool for law enforcement. But your article,your source, even in its Subtitle is against racial profiling stating "LAPD officers will utilize crime data, including ethnicity, to identify possible suspects. But there is no place for racial profiling in law enforcement."
See in the article it states that the officers were using Criminal profiling which is indifferent to racial profiling.The definition of criminal profiling is [1]"Offender profiling, also known as criminal profiling, is a behavioral and investigative tool that is intended to help investigators to accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminal subjects or offenders".While racial profiling's definition is [2] "Government activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects based solely on race".

Your article also supports the points I laid down earlier,and their opposition to racial profiling as well stating,"Racial profiling has consistently been one of the most confounding, divisive and controversial issues the police department confronts. A perception that police target members of specific ethnic or racial groups creates a deep divide between the police and the communities we serve. But as an officer who has spent a lot of time patrolling the city's streets, I just don't think the perception is accurate.
True racial profiling, in which people are targeted solely because of race or ethnicity, is both illegal and immoral. It destroys public trust and reduces the effectiveness of the police. There is no place for it in law enforcement. And I firmly believe that most LAPD officers support that viewpoint."

My Graph:
I will stand by my graph,as a useful tool for my argument,and I will explain in greater detail the usefulness of my graph towards my argument.My graph shows the actions that law enforcement took to apprehend the suspects,Which include the following criteria: "order out of car,Frisked,Asked for consensual search,non consensual search,and to opposition to my opponents claim arrested."
The percentage for whites remain at a constant level at bout 100%,but as you can clearly see if you were to look at my graph for blacks it is 116% and Hispanics 132% who were ordered out of their car.And my graph also shows more Blacks and Hispanics being Frisked,ask for consensual search,non consensual search,and again contrary to my opponents claim being arrested more often than Whites.Now,in the second graph it is titled "Were Officers' Suspicions Justified:Likelihood That a search Turned Up Evidence".In this graph Whites again remain at a constant level,but for the wrong reasons.Blacks and Hispanics drop down their percentages dramatically,for Evidence of weapons by frisking Blacks dropped to 42% and Hispanics to 32%,for evidence of weapons by consensual search Blacks 37% and Hispanics 33% etc.As for your graph I couldn't find any information seeing your link may be broken.

Cited Sources:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Pro

My opponent has convinced me. Vote Con.
TheMrkanyewest01

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his concession,And commend him for his performance.As my opponent has stated vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
@Erik_Boonprakong-Kitching
According to my research, racial profiling works in favor of Asians as they statistically commit fewer crimes.
Posted by Erik_Boonprakong-Kitching 4 years ago
Erik_Boonprakong-Kitching
I'm half Asian, however, the whole idea of racial profiling is hyped up too much as to what it is. My view on this is also sitting on the fence.
Posted by TheMrkanyewest01 4 years ago
TheMrkanyewest01
No like i said im agaisnt it because it's degrading never been racially profiled althought i do live in a predominantly white neighberhood and get called names.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
@TheMrkanyewest01
Don't worry about the acceptance anymore, it's fine. Just wondering, are you against racial profiling because you're Latino?
Posted by TheMrkanyewest01 4 years ago
TheMrkanyewest01
I'm glad to hear your Latino like me sorry I dindt notice the frost round acceptance
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
@Danielle
Sadly, I don't know enough about racial profiling to guarantee that I'll be able to post my rounds with any degree of speed. That's really quite unfortunate, as I'd have liked to debate this with you.

@16kadams
Feel free to accept.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I am not busy, so I might be up for this again.
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
(but if it's possible let me know)
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
I would really like to take this, but I start a new job Monday and won't have any time for DDO. My weekend is also very busy. The only way I might be able to accept is if we both agree to post our rounds asap, in order for the debate to be over by Friday night. I'm not sure if that's possible so I won't accept for now. I will follow this debate though.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Can't accept this sorry
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
AlwaysMoreThanYouTheMrkanyewest01Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments are clearly assigned to Con as Pro conceded the point. I gave Pro the conduct vote since the concession was a very gentleman-ish move on his part. *Tips hat*
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
AlwaysMoreThanYouTheMrkanyewest01Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro was winning, till he FFd
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
AlwaysMoreThanYouTheMrkanyewest01Tied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
AlwaysMoreThanYouTheMrkanyewest01Tied
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: Funnily enough i was actually going to vote for Pro points-wise before he told us to vote Con :P