The Instigator
triangle.128k
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Racial Profiling

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Valar_Dohaeris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 708 times Debate No: 67903
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

triangle.128k

Con

I would like to debate somebody on the topic of racial profiling. The first round is simply for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
triangle.128k

Con

Just to make it clear, this is the definition of racial profiling:

Racial profiling is the use of an individual's race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. stop and search or arrest).



Racial Profiling is mortally wrong.

Racial Profiling is simply wrong in a society like ours. America is SUPPOSED to be a democracy and have equal rights to individuals. However, racial profiling is violating equal rights and is racist. Racial profiling is also against the 4th ammendment and many others because one's race is no reasonable reason to search.

If somebody is a certain skin color, why should they be judged so harshly on just because of other people of his race? (S)he can't help it, (s)he was born with that certain skin color and it's not his/her fault that some people of their race decide to commit crimes.

Racial profiling means less equality. Somebody is judged based on the genes they were BORN with. It's like the flawed system of fuedalism in England a long time ago. You could be born as a noble and stay like that your whole life and live a great life. You could also be born as a peasant and almost never escape the class. The same logic implies here. People should not be accused based on how they were born, it's not logical. There could be a white man who commits a lot of crimes and a black man who abides by most laws. Yet, the white is at less risk then the black for the very few laws he broke.


White people commit the worst crimes and everybody is yet terrified of black people. The black people as criminals stereotype is completely false and is a hoax. The stereotype like this came back then when slavery was common and that is not the fault of blacks. I have provided evidence for this claim in one of my sources. Blacks are assumed to commit all the crimes but nobody pays attention to whites and asians who may commit crimes.



sources

http://www.louisianaweekly.com...
http://www.alternet.org...
http://reason.com...
http://www.civilrights.org...
http://colorlines.com...
http://heinonline.org...=
http://thesocietypages.org...
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

I'm kind of lost. Pro just asserts that black people commit more crimes than white people, thus racial profiling is bad. I'm totally lost as to how this is that relevant to the resolution. I am going to focus strictly around his case and negate it, because that is all that needs to be done and provide a simple syllogism in order to affirm that racial profiling can be good in some cases.

This is not my BOP but Con's entire case is summed up here

" White people commit the worst crimes and everybody is yet terrified of black people. The black people as criminals stereotype is completely false and is a hoax. The stereotype like this came back then when slavery was common and that is not the fault of blacks. I have provided evidence for this claim in one of my sources. Blacks are assumed to commit all the crimes but nobody pays attention to whites and asians who may commit crimes. "

Take the Us for example. Blacks statistically commit the most crimes in the United States[1]. If you look at that charm it's literally a truism. Blacks commit twice the amount of murders and rapes as other races, and nearly 1.5 times the amount of rape. A truism is an argument that is de factro true and that cannot be debated. Blacks commit more crime that is a fact. How does that tie into racial profiling?

If you know blacks are *more likely* to commit crimes than other races and *see* them in suspicious places. Being able to racially profile *can possibly* reduce and prevent crimes. It can be a good thing.

That affirms the res and negates cons case. Con just said black people do not commit more crimes than white people, I provided a study to negate that and showed how racial profiling *can possibly* reduce rimes

Vote pro

Sources

[1] http://www.fbi.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
triangle.128k

Con

"I'm kind of lost. Pro just asserts that black people commit more crimes than white people, thus racial profiling is bad."

I don't think you clearly understood it, I was asserting that racial profiling is bad because we can't put an entire race at fault just because of a few people. Also another reason that the statistics of blacks commiting more crimes may be due to the fact that blacks are targetted as criminals so whites can get away with crimes. Even if blacks are bigger criminals, does it matter?


"Take the Us for example. Blacks statistically commit the most crimes in the United States[1]. If you look at that charm it's literally a truism. Blacks commit twice the amount of murders and rapes as other races, and nearly 1.5 times the amount of rape. A truism is an argument that is de factro true and that cannot be debated. Blacks commit more crime that is a fact. How does that tie into racial profiling?"

And I mentioned before that racial profiling leads to racial inequality. While racial profiling may be a little safer like you have mentioned, liberty and equality are more important than safety in this society. A completely safe society would be a society with little to no freedom.

Why should white people be seen as superior to blacks who don't commit as much crimes as they do? Racial profiling sounds like just another Jim Crow law to me. Should white people be seen as stupid compared to asians? There's a well known stereotype of asians being smart, does that mean we should pay more money to asians who have the same job/career was whites?


Racial profiling leads to inequality and unfair advantages. Racial profiling may also mean white people will commit more crimes thinking that the police is only after blacks.



Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Con asserts in his first round that blacks do not commit more crimes, than white people. I negated that. Now moving on to his second point, he is asserting it is a violation of equal rights. The only way I can formulate this argument is based on his interpreation of equal rights. He states

" It violates the 4th amendment and many others because ones race is no reasonable reason to search"

I entirely agree with this point, but this is not my case nor does it really show the net gains of profiling. You don't have to search anyone to profile them, and this is a fundamental flaw in cons argument. If you know (which I have shown) that a certain race is more than likely prone to commit crimes, then you can establish stronger patrols in areas where large numbers of that race live. Look at it statistically. If you know (x) race is 70 percent more likely to commit crimes than (y) race. Then you know a majorette of that race lives in (z). If you set a stronger patrol around location z, statistically you have a higher chance to reduce crime given a de facto truth about statistics.

My adversary keeps asserting there is less equality and that race is being judged harshly. Maybe the judged harshly part I can agree but it is by no means giving them less equality which is the foundation to his argument. Less equality would mean denying them rights. Placing a stronger surveillance around areas that are more prone to crime is not violating any property rights or equality rights, it's about crime mitigation.

He then asserts that most blacks aren't criminals again which is false. I already broke this down in a study above, it is a fact that most blacks are prone to commit crime, than most other races and by a wide margin.

Thus we can negate this resolution as his definition of equal rights is violating those rights, and by watching a race more than others, we are not violating their rights
Debate Round No. 3
triangle.128k

Con

If you know (which I have shown) that a certain race is more than likely prone to commit crimes, then you can establish stronger patrols in areas where large numbers of that race live. Look at it statistically. If you know (x) race is 70 percent more likely to commit crimes than (y) race. Then you know a majorette of that race lives in (z). If you set a stronger patrol around location z, statistically you have a higher chance to reduce crime given a de facto truth about statistics.


The problem with this is that we are profiling people based on race. Not only is this racist but it is more logical to decide how much patrol to establish based on crime rates, not based on race. For example, there's location A and location B. Location A has mainly whites and asians yet the crime rate is very high. Location B has mostly black people (who are stereotyped to commit more crimes than other races) and the crime rate is very low. Racial profiling would mean you set up more patrol and surveillance at location B. However, it's more logical to judge by crime rates, not by race.

Not only is racial profiling a bit racist, but it's more logical not to have racial profiling. Now if high-crime rate areas typically have black people, it doesn't mean that all the time. We should ignore whatever race lives in a certain place and make a decesion on how much security to put in a place based on the crime rate and typical enviornment of the place. A place like a ghetto would need more surveillance and patrol then a rich neighborhood, and there are other factors besides wealth.


Instead of racially profiling people, other factors should be considered. Racial profiling may not be most logical given my examples above.
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Con is now ignoring the crux of the argument. If a certain race is more prone to committing crimes by a high degree, statistically areas where that races congregates will have high crime rates. Blacks commit the most crimes in america. Generally towns that have a high black population, have extremely high crime rates.

Take Alabama for example. In 2010 Alabama was comprised of nearly 67 percent Caucasian people and 26.2 percent black with the rest of the races varying [1]. With such a small percentage of the population being black, still nearly 77 percent of robberies were committed by black offenders [2]. Aggravated assault nearly 55 percent from blacks[3]. Burglary nearly 60 percent from blacks [4]. 62 percent of African Americans committed homicide[5]. A whopping 92 percent of African Americans where responsible for interracial rape [6] . My adversary just says target high crime area,s but as we can see those statistics literally point to one race being responsible for the most crimes. Now if you have most of that race congregated in one area, you can logically assume there will be probably be crime. Now let's take these stats and apply in to an on city comparison. Mobile Alabama has nearly 51 percent of the population as African Americans [7]. Surprisingly enough nearly 80 percent of the crime in this city is committed by African Americans. Mobile has been in the top 5 most dangerous cities in Alabama along with prichard multiple times, and both have nearly the same statistics and high percentage of African Americans.

From these stats we can conclude, there is reason to racial profile. If you expect a certain race to commit more crimes based on stats, and that race is high density in one area. We can logically expect more crimes to occur there (which happens as cited). Thus racial profiling has benefits because it reduces crime.

My adversaries only rebuttal is that is not true, and that racial profiling is a violation of the constitution. IT does work and it's not a violation of the constitution. You are not committed unlawful searches as he suggests, but keeping tabs on areas that are more than likely to commit crimes to mitigate damage. My adversary has been properly refuted an the resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://www.occidentaldissent.com...
[2] http://www.occidentaldissent.com...
[3] http://www.occidentaldissent.com...
[4] http://www.occidentaldissent.com...
[5] http://www.occidentaldissent.com...
[6] http://www.occidentaldissent.com...
[7] http://www.usa.com...
Debate Round No. 4
triangle.128k

Con

Like I said, what's more important is the crime rate in an area, not the races there. It's likely that there is at least one neighborhood that has more white people but a higher than average crime rate. You are ignoring the fact that there can be a town filled with whites and asians that still has a high crime rate. Instead, you are throwing facts and numbers about the comparision between black and white crimes. That was your whole argument, just mentioning black vs white crime rates without actually debunking any of my arguments.

Racial profiling is also racist, not all blacks are criminals. By using racial profiling, you are putting the entire race at stake just because of a few people. There are many innocent blacks who are wrongly being accused.


There are white dominant neighborhoods with high crime rates, and black dominant neighborhoods with low crime rates. While typically it is the other way around, it can be the other way around some times. Imagine a neighborhood with high crime rate which is mainly filled with white people. Imagine a neighborhood with less crime rate and is filled with black people. Racial profiling would mean there's more security in the neighborhood with black people. It's simply racist and will not solve anything.



sources
http://forwardtimesonline.com...;
http://www.usatoday.com...
http://thesocietypages.org...
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Valar_Dohaeris forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
What precisely about it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
triangle.128kValar_DohaerisTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: "liberty and equality are more important than safety in this society" is what lost it for Con. Pro also gave reasonable explanations as to how racial profiling can be beneficial to society. However Conduct to Con because I don't find it very sportsmanlike when someone says to vote for them.