Racial/Religious Profiling Is a Rational Political Stance
I'm going to spend some time trying to structure this debate, and will update it as the days progress. I actually have some free time to finish a debate since I have a few days off for the new year. Been wanting to do this for a while and since I can actually input effort, I look forward to this.
If you find a way to accept this without my permission, you will suffer a full FF and automatic loss.
Full Resolution - Religious and Racial Profiling In Immigration is a Rational Political Stance.
Religious and Racial Profiling - Profiling someone based on their Region of Birth, Race, Religion, etc.
Rational - Agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible:
Rational (2) - Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense
This debate is based on the concept of religious and racial profiling in regards to immigration. Meaning this debate is centered around the belief that people of certain areas or religions that are high risk would undergo a more strict process to enter into the country. The debate extends this to the extent that it is considered a rational political stance.
First round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last round
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.
8. No "K's" on the topic.
The first thing I want to discuss is the context in which this can be used properly. I don't want their to be a misconception with the fact that this has to be applied objectively across the board. Meaning what I'm proposing would not be applied categorically to one race or religion.
Example : Blacks have high crime ratios, so let's profile all blacks
That is not a great idea, and could lead to a majority of issues. With a little research, we can break this down to area based statistics, and from there categorically place people. Detroit has the highest crime rate in the US . Ironically most of the crime in Detroit such as homicides and murders comes from African American communities, which led to nearly 60-70% of the total crime that occurred. So what we can see is that Detroit has the highest crime rate in the US, and a great deal of that crime is caused and occurs in African American communities.
One bad apple doesn't make the tree bad, and it's wrong to categorically call all African American criminals. What is not wrong is to acknowledge that it's an objective fact that African Americans are responsible for a vast majority of the crime. That does not correlate or entail that all African Americans are bad, but it does give us a starting ground for how to mitigate crime.
Now if you assigned patrols to look over and watch these areas, and specifically check African Americans due to the the high crime margins. You can and will prevent crime. Just out of basic stats. If 70% of the crime is caused by African Americans, profiling them and setting patrols up in a specific area where crime is an issue will mitigate crime.
Not just that but it's logical to think this
I would go further into this, but that is all I really need to do to uphold the resolution. I will respond more depending on my what my adversary argues, but if you scale this logic out, it's rational to profile people based on race and religion, if you target it and do it properly because it will objectively mitigate some crime.
Before I start any rebuttals or arguments I would simply like to state the full resolution: Religious and Racial Profiling In Immigration is a Rational Political Stance. Now let us take a closer look. It says immigration yes? I would like to point out that my opponent has done no arguing or planning in immigration as of yet.
My opponent argues that racial profiling is a rational response to patterns of criminal behavior.
In the context of street-level crime, his argument rest on the assumption that minorities—used in this context to refer to African Americans commit most murder related and other street-level crimes, and that many, or most, street-level criminals are in turn African Americans. Thus, the argument continues, it is a sensible use of law enforcement resources to target African Americans in this context. Well according to Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. at 806 case the U.S. Supreme Court has held that racial profiling violates the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the law. And as such racial profiling is already illegal to do.
The "Guidance Regarding the Use of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies" that was issued by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2003 states:
"Racial profiling" at its core concerns the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures. It is premised on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity.
Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just society.
This is simply stating that racial profiling is an ineffective and nearly useless way to “help” with stopping crime as it inhibits investigative procedures.
My adversaries entire case is that racial profiling is "ineffective", so it's not rational to believe it. What I think he is trying to argue is that it is unconstitutional. He never made a case for why it was ineffective but basically tried to establish a civil right case under the Constitution. Not everything under the constitution is right, it's not a holy book with words written that are perfect and forever timeless. The constitution in and of itself has been amended countless times. If we all went by federal law or never challenged it, abortion would still be illegal. People thought gay marriage was rational and it was changed from the status quo. There have been many things that were federal laws and under the constitution that have been appealed and changed.
My adversary is committing an appeal to authority, and using the federal government / constitution as the authority. He has not even built a case to show why it's not rational or logical. His entire argument is "because it's breaks the laws in place" it is not rational. To even have a chance at this argument standing he would have to show why it's wrong to believe this, not that it's just against the law.
Also just a side note, even if he did establish it is deplorable to believe this, that would not necessitate that it is irrational. Torture is deplorable and we have used it rationally to save many lives. So there are very bad things that are deplorable , that are rational
Reforming and Scaling the argument )
We know Muslim immigrants are a threat. Reducing the harm by from targeted areas such as iran, syria, etc by using profiling as a guideline would help mitigate crime in the say was I stated above. If you target an area that has high crime issues, by profiling you will at least reduce the crime by some margin. If you reduce crime and stop danger, it is rational to believe it is a good idea. Thus affirming the res
I would go more into this but it's not needed for this debate
1) my adversaries entire case is an appeal to authority which is not viable in debate and is a logical fallacy
2) he has yet to even show why racial profiling is even bad.
3) IF he has not show it is bad, he has not even remotely begun to show that it is not rational
I showed the logic and how it could be considered rational to believe it, thus I have affirmed the res.
Kirigaya-Kazuto forfeited this round.
that will be the debate sadly as he had to ff due to time constraints
thank you for a great debate friend