The Instigator
Amphia
Con (against)
The Contender
Omniscient19
Pro (for)

Racial profiling is justified

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Omniscient19 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 185 times Debate No: 108069
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Amphia

Con

I have seen on so many people's profiles that they agree with racial profiling. I was so shocked that I researched it again to make sure everyone was talking about the same thing. We are, which led me to start this debate.

I firmly disagree that racial profiling is ever justified. FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE ONLY OKAY? Please abide by that one simple rule. Character count is low on purpose. Let's try and keep our arguments concise.

Also for reference, this is the definition:

ra"cial pro"fil"ing
noun US
the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense.
Omniscient19

Pro

Yes Racial profiling is justified. When you take a look at the race of the people who are committing the largest number of terrorist activities, the answer is very obvious. In spite of the fact that not all people of a particular race are evil, they still pose a threat to humanity. That is a fact you cannot deny it. So yes racial profiling is justified, that's all I have to say for this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Amphia

Con

"Yes Racial profiling is justified. When you take a look at the race of the people who are committing the largest number of terrorist activities, the answer is very obvious. In spite of the fact that not all people of a particular race are evil, they still pose a threat to humanity. That is a fact you cannot deny it. So yes racial profiling is justified, that's all I have to say for this round."

I don't think racial profiling is ever justified because race is not an indicator of behavior.

You mentioned how the race of the people committing the largest terrorist activities is obvious and I assume you are referring to Middle Easterners (correct me if I am wrong) but that fact is not true. The threat of Middle Eastern terrorists is a threat but so is the threat of black terrorists (Boko Haram). So is the threat of white terrorists (KKK). Terrorists come from all races, it is just that in America, we only ever talk about Middle Eastern terrorists because the media wants a good news story that people will pay attention to. This is unfortunate because there are many terrorist groups in places other than the Middle East that we should also be watching for. It is also sad because it overblows the threat of terrorism from that area.

I do not understand how people think profiling is acceptable because there are tons of American citizens with Middle Eastern heritage who are discriminated or insulted simply for their skin color. I don't see how that is justified.

I also do not think racial profiling is acceptable within our own soil. Often times, black people and latinos/hispanics are targeted by police because they seem to be dodgy. This is also connected to "reasonable suspicion". Reasonable suspicion is defined as: "...reasonable suspicion is based upon the standard of a reasonable police officer."

This is highly problematic because an officer with preconceived notions of minorities and inherent biases might see a minority walking around in a grey hoodie as "reasonably suspicious". It"s too vague and can be applied however an officer deems necessary. It also just worsens the racial profiling in America as it allows officers to do so with little backlash or consequences.

Racial profiling is racism. And you cannot justify racism.
Omniscient19

Pro

"I don't think racial profiling is ever justified because race is not an indicator of behavior."Yes, Race is an indicator of behavior. People of same races come from the same background, practice the same religion, eat the same food, talk the same sense and have a similar behavioral pattern.
"I assume you are referring to Middle Easterners (correct me if I am wrong) but that fact is not true." Yes, it is true. Where is that place in the world where maximum unrest is prevailing?Where is the ISIS operating from?Go check on google if you do not believe me
When you see a person, notwithstanding the fact to which race he belongs, that person represents his race and community.Take the example of Indians. Their citizens do not get involved in terrorist activities abroad and at home much.However even when the case of a person who is made to join a terror group by brainwashing comes up, we take responsibility and investigate the matter and try to prevent them from happening in the future.Now some countries, on the other hand, do not care or rather you would say in a way promote such activities.They are responsible for their deeds. A society which values Human rights and peace cannot produce terrorists. That is a fact.Thus racial profiling is justified.
Debate Round No. 2
Amphia

Con

"Yes, Race is an indicator of behavior. People of same races come from the same background, practice the same religion, eat the same food, talk the same sense and have a similar behavioral pattern."

No, race is NOT an indicator of behavior. People of the same races do NOT necessarily come of the same background, practice the same religion, eat the same food, or have similar behavior.

Would you argue that a Chinese person would eat the same food as a Japanese person because they are both Asian? Would you say a Dutch man would have the same religion as a Spanish man because they are both white? Would you argue that an Iranian would act the same as an Iraqi (no, by the way, even though they are both of the same race, they hate each other and are very different!) That's called bigotry.

"Yes, it is true. Where is that place in the world where maximum unrest is prevailing?Where is the ISIS operating from?Go check on google if you do not believe me."

That is because here in America, we only focus on terrorism from the Middle East. After 9/11, Americans began displaying more distrust of people of the Middle East, because a Middle Easterner bombed the World Trade Towers. While it is healthy to fear radical terrorists, it is wrong to fear all Middle Easterners because they all have the same skin color. No one would argue the logic that one person (or a minority group of people) represents an entire population. Anyway, as I said, there is terrorism everywhere, Boko Haram is doing just as much damage in Nigeria as Isis does in Iraq and Syria. Their is unrest in Nigeria, in Somalia, in Myanmar, and many places OTHER THAN THE MIDDLE EAST. Terrorism is not a trait of Middle Easterners. It is a trait of terrorists.

"When you see a person, notwithstanding the fact to which race he belongs, that person represents his race and community.Take the example of Indians. Their citizens do not get involved in terrorist activities abroad and at home much. However even when the case of a person who is made to join a terror group by brainwashing comes up, we take responsibility and investigate the matter and try to prevent them from happening in the future. Now some countries, on the other hand, do not care or rather you would say in a way promote such activities.They are responsible for their deeds."

It is sad that we live in a world where people argue that one person represents an entire population. This thinking occurs in our status quo but it SHOULD NOT. The community investigating the matter is not taking responsibility for the actions of one person. They are trying to find ways to prevent such events from ever occurring again. They would never say "Oh yeah, he bombed you and we take the blame because we are all the same skin color." There is nothing wrong with investigating why issues like that happen in your country, one should do this, but to allow an entire population to be represented by someone in the minority is unfair to all the other good people just living their lives.

I am not advocating that we ignore terrorism or the actions people in our communities do, I am arguing that to blame everyone for a small percentage is unwarranted.

"A society which values Human rights and peace cannot produce terrorists. That is a fact. Thus racial profiling is justified."

That is not a fact. Take the US for example. Literally our Constitution says "all men are equal" and we have may laws to prevent discrimination. We value human rights and peace and yet, we have the KKK. Or take Myanmar. Their leader is Nobel Peace Prize winner and yet the military is terrorizing the Rohingya Muslims. A society that values human rights can still produce terrorists because people can be evil regardless of their society. These terrorists are just a small number in all societies, though.

Racial profiling is unfair and is outright bigotry. It is not justified.
Omniscient19

Pro

"Would you argue that a Chinese person would eat the same food as a Japanese person because they are both Asian? Would you say a Dutchman would have the same religion as a Spanish man because they are both white? Would you argue that an Iranian would act the same as an Iraqi (no, by the way, even though they are both of the same race, they hate each other and are very different!) That's called bigotry." By eating the same food I didn't mean it literally first of all. If two communities are hating each other doesn't mean they do not have the same ideology.The hate might be a result of any political phenomenon too.

"That is because here in America, we only focus on terrorism from the Middle East." Just because America focusses on a particular terrorist group doesn't mean it is the largest, I agree, but when you check the statistical data more than 90% middle easterners constitute the entire terror community and carry out the most number of terrorist attacks at home as
well as abroad.

"Terrorism is not a trait of Middle Easterners. It is a trait of terrorists." By simply saying that you cannot deny the facts.We have to be PRACTICAL and find the epicentre of these activities if we really mean to eradicate them.

" They are trying to find ways to prevent such events from ever occurring again. They would never say "Oh yeah, he bombed you and we take the blame because we are all the same skin colour." There is nothing wrong with investigating why issues like that happen in your country, one should do this, but to allow an entire population to be represented by someone in the minority is unfair to all the other good people just living their lives." When I said, people take responsibility for such incidents I did not mean to say that they all must be accused of it.You are twisting my words.I meant to say that we vehemently oppose such activities do not go by the literal meaning of 'responsibility'.

"Take the US for example. Literally, our Constitution says "all men are equal" and we have many laws to prevent discrimination. We value human rights and peace and yet, we have the KKK. Or take Myanmar. Their leader is Nobel Peace Prize winner and yet the military is terrorizing the Rohingya Muslims. A society that values human rights can still produce terrorists because people can be evil regardless of their society. These terrorists are just a small number in all societies, though."
Now how the hell did the constitution of the US come in?The ideology of a society does not depend on what is written in the constitution. Many things are written in our religious books. Do we follow them all?Just because it is written in the constitution of a country that Human rights must be valued doesn't mean it is really valued by the masses.It depends on the culture, the environment, and the thinking. The people don't really care if their leader is a Nobel laureate or not. I bet that even if all the Nobel laureates go to a terrorist country and preach humanity, they won't succeed. Why? because the thinking of the entire community is like that. Of course, exceptions will be there but the basics are the same.It won't change.These people have a false feeling of supremacy and that they are correct and the rest are wrong.No one is born terrorist, he is made one.
Debate Round No. 3
Amphia

Con

"Just because America focuses on a particular terrorist group doesn't mean it is the largest, I agree, but when you check the statistical data more than 90% middle easterners constitute the entire terror community and carry out the most number of terrorist attacks at home as well as abroad."

When you mentioned that statistic, I was quite shocked, it seemed like too large a number to be true. I was right. I searched the statistic and this is what came up: "Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America,"
https://www.globalresearch.ca...

I don't really believe you would twist facts that way but this is all I was able to find through searching so if you do have an article with the statistics you mentioned, please post it in your next round. I was unable to find it.

"By simply saying that you cannot deny the facts. We have to be PRACTICAL and find the epicentre of these activities if we really mean to eradicate them." I was not able to find any evidence claiming such a statistic was true and as I said earlier, terrorism is everywhere and committed by many people of all colors. It is not connected to race.

And I do NOT care if profiling all brown people means we will never have a terrorist from the Middle East again (which is not true regardless). Because one, this is ridiculous unfair to the majority of good Middle Easterners. It is also unfair to people who are brown but not Middle Eastern. People who are mixed or not even of Middle Eastern descent but have brown skin, like Indians, are likely to be mistaken for "terrorists". And two, it doesn't even solve the problem of terrorists from other countries.

"When I said, people take responsibility for such incidents I did not mean to say that they all must be accused of it.You are twisting my words.I meant to say that we vehemently oppose such activities do not go by the literal meaning of 'responsibility'."

I am sorry for misinterpreting your argument but I still do not understand it. Of course we all want to prevent terrorism but this is not the way to do it. And how does that justify racial profiling? I would argue that a country like India values human rights and yet they still produce terrorists.

"Now how the hell did the constitution of the US come in?The ideology of a society does not depend on what is written in the constitution. Many things are written in our religious books. Do we follow them all?Just because it is written in the constitution of a country that Human rights must be valued doesn't mean it is really valued by the masses."

Maybe not but that doesn't mean that terrorism is an ideology valued by the masses either. Maybe not everyone in the US completely agrees with the Constitution but that does not mean that a large portion of them do not value human rights. In the US, a large portion of us value human rights.

"It depends on the culture, the environment, and the thinking. The people don't really care if their leader is a Nobel laureate or not. I bet that even if all the Nobel laureates go to a terrorist country and preach humanity, they won't succeed. Why? because the thinking of the entire community is like that."

You are going into the bigotry argument once again. You say that a Nobel Laureate cannot preach humanity because the entire community thinks like the soldiers I mentioned. What I am saying is that you can still preach human rights (and still believe in human rights) and produce terrorists, and also that these terrorists are not representative of the society. These soldiers committing human rights abuses on the Rohingya Muslims do not represent all of Myanmar.

"Of course, exceptions will be there but the basics are the same.It won't change.These people have a false feeling of supremacy and that they are correct and the rest are wrong.No one is born terrorist, he is made one."

I do agree terrorists are made. But not necessarily because of their society's beliefs. They are formed by their own thinking and individual circumstances that have radicalized their views. Maybe they hate Christians because some Christians would insult them--and they figured extremism was best. While some people helped along the way that does not mean the society is who is to blame. Who is to blame is the terrorist/terrorist group.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Masterful 1 week ago
Masterful
Omni, take a statistical approach to this and use the overwhelming crimes rates committed by African Americans.

Imagine that you are the chief of police and you have just been informed that crime rates are out of control, you know from research that white males commit more crimes than black males, would you really just sit around saying, "I have an idea, lets split our forces evenly, and hope that the criminals decide to come to us"?
This is what you have proposed, by saying that racial profiling is bad. You are hindering the police force and other investigative organisations.
Posted by Masterful 1 week ago
Masterful
Con believes minor prejudice is worse than bombs exploding, killing women and children.

Of racial profiling is justified. It's the best way to catch terrorists, unless you think you know something we all don't?
Posted by Omniscient19 1 week ago
Omniscient19
I am debating just for the sake of debating.I think it is not justified but still we should know about the other side of the coin.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.