The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Racial/Religious Profiling Is a Rational Political Stance

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/11/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,589 times Debate No: 84579
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




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.


I gladly accept this debate and am looking forward to debating Mikal on the topic.
Debate Round No. 1


This debates purpose is to show that Racial profiling can have a rational and viable point.

1) Plan

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[1] . 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[2][3]. 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.[4] 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.[5]

This is simply stating that racial profiling is an ineffective and nearly useless way to “help” with stopping crime as it inhibits investigative procedures.






Debate Round No. 2


Sorry I had literally 30 minuets to post the last round so just threw it together, but now that I have more time we can go more in detail with this. I'm going to apply the same argument I used it before and scale it to immigration which is part of the topic, but first rebuttals.

Rebuttal )

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.
Debate Round No. 3


extend as i cannot really argue much more

that will be the debate sadly as he had to ff due to time constraints

thank you for a great debate friend


I apologize for my ff, I was really looking forward to this debate. Sadly due to third party actions I did not have time to post or even type an argument for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by godsend221 1 year ago
Let's be as objective as possible about this:

1. Crime is happening.
2. The people committing crime are Black.
3. Therefore, if we watch blacks more, we will stop more crime from happening and cities will be safer.

This is the logic of those who are in favor of this.
It's hard for me to be objective about this but I'm going to try. Let's say I'm a cop and I see one black man and one white man walking down the street. I think that blacks are more prone to commit crime. I stop the two people and ask the black man for his ID and ask where he's going and what he's doing. I do not ask the white man anything or require an ID. As a cop what I have now done is communicated to the white person that I will turn a blind eye to him and focus on the black man. There is a limited number of cops on the street so they see it as a way to focus their efforts to do the most good but in that argument, the application of that policy has embedded within it a philosophical laziness that does not desire to see all sides of this problem. This lends it self to facilitate organized crime because if a gang leader knows the cops pay more attention in one neighborhood, they will will just change their tactics. So your policy of "focusing" actually causes crime to adjust and in the end you haven't disabled crime, you've enabled it.
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
You want to mitigate crime in the ghetto, invest int eh education of the marginalized. Boom! Problem f-ing solved. This debate was moronic long before the forfeit.
Posted by Dragon_of_Christ 2 years ago
No semantics Mikal?


You made this rule for your debate?
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
This whole thing is still incendiary as all hell. The fact that someone would come to this kind of venue to advocate bigotry is truly beyond the pale.

Someone should ask the affirmative what they serve at Klan meetings.
Posted by glyphix 2 years ago
Mikal... iit seems your whole argument was based on "if done correctly"... that's the key part... racial/religious profiling will almost certainly never be "done correctly" or fairly. I'd be curious how you would propose implementing such a system? Who get's to decide who gets more scrutiny? Or who is just not allowed to immigrate at all? And how do we make sure that it's only used where it should be as opposed to being misused in a tyrannical way?
Posted by DavidMancke 2 years ago
the affirmative case is incendiary in all examples offered. I don't know what kind of company you folks are running here, but in academic debate he would have been dropped like a murder weapon.

He stopped just short of using racial pejoratives, that is the only positive thing I can say.

Also the affirmative attempts to fiat for attitudinal barriers, though they may not realize it. Not only is the implied plan (only implied not road mapped) illegal, in this day/age/climate very few agencies could overcome the moral repugnance of the prescribed plan, and you cannot fiat for attitude to get your plan off the ground.

No one brought up the established harms of racial profiling while we are swimming in examples these days, especially when it comes to who police target. Shame on you both for missing that. And an epic shame to the affirmative for running this Donald Trump diatribe to begin with. SHAME!
Posted by Kirigaya-Kazuto 2 years ago
It's no problem, I'm sorry I had to ff.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Sorry for not laying out better arguments before you had to ff btw

I knew you said you were going to have to ff and I was caught up with my other debate that took up alot of time

nice debating you though buddy
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
Posted by prorobotics 2 years ago
I would love to accept this challenge, but my ELO ranking, my age and my percentile is too low
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: aw, could have been great. Con broke rules a ff'd.