The Instigator
perfectjfl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YaHey
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Racial profiling is not necessarily racist as many claimed to be.

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 3 votes the winner is...
YaHey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,450 times Debate No: 58645
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

perfectjfl

Pro

While racial profiling is a reasonable assumption solely based on the color of one's skin, it's not racist as many sensitive people claimed to be. Take for example, assuming that I'm a witness of a robbery scene, and here is what I described to the police:
The criminal is a tall, skinny, and middle-aged African American male who wears a red T-shirt.
If the police believes in what I said and starts to search for the potential suspects, is it "discriminatory" (as in a bad way) to look after people who are tall? How about people who are skinny? How about people who are middle-aged? How about men? How about those who happen to wear a red T-shirt? Why is racist/bad when it comes race? Like height, weight, age, gender, etc., race or skin color is just another characteristic that defines the physical appearance of a person.
Secondly, it's statically likely that a certain group is more suspicious for a certain type of crime. Take for example (I'm not trying to intentionally pick on any group), it's "reasonable" and "logical" for police to believe an Arab-looking person to be a terrorist, an African American to be a drug dealer, a Hispanic to be an illegal immigrant, a white male to be a serial killer, etc. While there are some false stereotypes about certain groups of people, there are also facts that hard to argue. For example, in the black community, the ratio of black people in prison over the black population as a whole, is relatively higher comparing to other ethnic groups. It's "statistically" reasonable to pull over a black person driving on the highway than a white person. While there are plenty of black people in our society that follow the laws and do what they are supposed to do to be a good citizen, it's important to realize that crime rate is relatively higher in the black community. It's definitely horrible for a good-behaving black person to be pulled over because of his or her skin color. However, in the society as a whole, we must recognize and embrace some facts that are undeniable; black people are more "suspicious" because they have a relatively higher crime rate comparing to others (there are various reasons that cause this to happen, but that's irrelevant to this topic). If you look at other physical characteristics (such as the ones that I mentioned above), many will probably make a fair "statistically likely" assumption regarding to a certain feature as well. For example, it's undeniable that fat people are more susceptible to heart diseases and diabetes. While not all fat people have heart problem or diabetes, it's a "reasonable" assumption for many to assume that a fat person have such problems. Now, is it better to be a doctor who recommend his or her fat patient to run a heart/urine/blood check because the doctor acknowledge that the patient is over-weighted? Or is it better to be a doctor who turns "colorblind" to his or her patient's weight and have the patient to pay a larger consequence later in life? What I'm trying to say is that, while it's better to be a colorblind when it comes to college admission, job interview, and loan request, we will and we sometimes have to acknowledge a person's physical characteristics under certain circumstances. While I have all kinds of friends, I still know who are white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. And of course, I know who are tall/short, fat/skinny, young/old, etc. If I'm a good friend, I'll tell my fat friend to reduce his or her diet and my skinny friend to increase his or her diet. If I'm a good police, I'll suspect a black person for dealing with drugs and a white person for being a serial killer. As a friend, while my advice may offend my fat and skinny friends, my advice will only be beneficial to their own health. As a police, while my logical assumption based on race may hurt the feeling of those who are innocent, my assumption will only benefit the society in a more efficient way.

*I acknowledged that some of my examples may offend someone out there, I must use these examples as part of my logic to prove my points. I'm very sorry about any offense and I'll apologize in advance if any of my statement or example offend anyone out there.
*English is NOT my first language, I apologize for any grammar mistake. But please focus on my argument instead of my language ability. Thank you!
YaHey

Con

R1: If a suspect is describes as having a certain ethnicity, along with other physical attribute(s), then that isn't real racial profiling. On the page debate.org page for racial profiling, the Arizona Attorney General defined racial profiling as "Use by law enforcement personnel of an individuals race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual, unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime." So yes, in the robbery case, police would be justified looking for an African American male because there is a specific suspect.

R2: Actually, anywhere from 90-94% of terrorist attacks on US soil are not by Arabic people. http://www.washingtonsblog.com...;
http://www.loonwatch.com...
While 37% of drug dealers are African American, this does not mean that African Americans are likely to deal drugs. Oh, and by the way, 2/3 of drug users are white and Hispanic.
http://www.naacp.org...
Out of illegal immigrants, 81% are Hispanics. However, just like for African American drug dealers, this does not mean that a Hispanic person is likely to be an illegal immigrant. There are 11 million estimate illegal immigrants in the U.S. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) which is about 9 million Hispanic illegal immigrants. There are 53 million Hispanic Americans, so 9/53 is 5.89. There is a 5.89% chance that a Hispanic person is illegal, certainly not good enough to stop a Hispanic person for their papers.

There is a point I need to bring up on this. The argument that African Americans have a higher crime rate is almost circular if you think about the big picture. African Americans are stopped more often than a white person, so it is more likely for an African American to arrested than a white person. Thus, it seems that African Americans are more likely to commit the crime and the system is "proved" to be affective. Also, black people are more likely to get convicted and have longer sentences. "An African-American convicted of a low-level drug crime in Cook County is eight times more likely than his white counterpart to face prison time for it, according to a new report released yesterday." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

Drug Sentencing Disparities

  • About 14 million Whites and 2.6 million African Americans report using an illicit drug
  • 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites
  • African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense.
  • African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months). (Sentencing Project)
http://www.naacp.org... If the statistics were truly in your favor, then you may have a point, but as I clearly addressed here the facts suggest otherwise. While there is a racial disparity of people locked up, one must ask why this is rather than go along with it. You say that your assumptions will only help society, but in retrospect, maybe the racism in our police force is what is causing these disparities.

Now that I have made my rebuttals, I will make a few cases against racial profiling.

C1: The Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." As I have stated, just because a race may be more statistically likely under a probable racist police force, this does not mean it is likely for a member of that race to commit said crime.

C2: The Fourteenth Amendment: The 14th Amendment states that all citizens are equal under the law. If we suspect every minority of some crime, then that would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Debate Round No. 1
perfectjfl

Pro

perfectjfl forfeited this round.
YaHey

Con

My argument stands.
Debate Round No. 2
perfectjfl

Pro

perfectjfl forfeited this round.
YaHey

Con

Okay, my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds, so I would urge all to vote Con.

First of all, if no crime has been committed, and no specific suspect has been identified, then what is the basis for stopping minorities? No matter how good of a detective you think you are, you can't predict crimes.

A white man that has gone to jail is more likely to be hired than a black convict in most industries, creating an econimic push to deal drugs rather than working off minimum wage.

Thanks to LogicLib.org for bringing this argument to my attention.

And thanks to Polinut for the following link:
http://www.fbi.gov...

White people are more likely to rape, assault, burglarize, steal a vehicle, commit arson, commit forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, vandalize, carry weapons, ETC. So let me ask you, why in the hell are we profiling minorities?
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
@Polinute you bring me into the difficulties of deciding whether to tell you that you can ask an administration like airmax to give you voting rights (as soon as you completed three debates) or to not tell you, because I think your opinions are harmfully interpreting facts in a way they don't allow.
You can't make discriminative assumption about Caucasians saying that they WILL PROVE RIGHT after further research. That's like me saying that I will most likely prove to be the perfect American president, if we look closer into statistics - an interpretation not justified by common knowledge or logical argumenting.
Posted by Polinut 2 years ago
Polinut
I would love to vote Con, but DBO forbids those of us living in a country not listed on their verification page to vote and otherwise participate in this site. Why the selective disenfranchisement? I do not know, but perhaps their diabolical reasons shall be revealed in time...

@YaHey - Knowledge always kicks Ignorance's azz in a fair fight! Keep up the good fight.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Just to let all viewers know, even if my opponent forfeits the round, I will be updating my argument with the brilliant points listed in the comments, so thanks in advance to LogicLib.org and Polinut.
Posted by Polinut 2 years ago
Polinut
Ooops. I just want to highlight a fact from the FBI data.

Excluding statistical ties of +/- 3%, of ALL the crimes listed, Blacks "should" be racially profiled for Gambling more than Caucasians.

That's it. Gambling...and that is a "victimless" non-violent crime.

So, howya like dem apples?
Posted by Polinut 2 years ago
Polinut
Oh, my. The FBI is just full of facts, aren't they?

http://www.fbi.gov...

If racial profiling reflected the facts, then the percentage of those profiled should closely match the percentage of those (by race) who commit each type of crime.

But dayum those facts.

Facts are absolutely not the basis for racial profiling (I know: Duh, right?). Brainwashed fear is the basis. If someone would care to look into it academically, I'll wager they will find that the percentage of racial profiling closely reflects a ranking of perceived fear by race...
Posted by Polinut 2 years ago
Polinut
I know WikiPedia is not a "source" per say, but here is a list of terrorist acts committed in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have not investigated each, but I'll bet close to or in excess of 80% of those terrorist acts were committed by Caucasians. I'd wager close to 80% of those were hate crimes committed by Caucasians against ethnic minorities.

Ooooh...and shall we even try to venture into the incalculable genocide, rape, murder, and other heinous atrocities committed during slavery? Really?

So, if KNOWN HISTORICAL FACTs were somehow used as the basis for racial profiling (oh, what a silly, silly thing to expect, right?), then it's the Caucasians who should be able to recite Miranda by heart before age 18 - not minorities. Not as a result of learning it in some classroom, but as a result of having heard it enough times during unjustifiable stops.

I'll leave it at that and let the facts and debaters speak on it.
Posted by LogicalLib.org 2 years ago
LogicalLib.org
Because its my constitutional right to not have my privacy invaded and a right to be considered equal before the law as everyone else-- not just people the same shade as me.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
If you are innocent, why would you be against the US government taping every second of you life? Why would you be against be assumed you are going to go out and become a serial killer? Why would you be against being more likely to go to jail than the people around you just because the shade of your skin?

I wonder why
Posted by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
My point on for pro-profiling.

Would you be pulled aside. A 40 white female or me, a teenage middle eastern that happens to be very savvy with technology.

Profiling is different from racism. Racism assumes the race has done wrong while profiling assumes a race is more likely to commit the crime. They are different. And for those profiled, if you are not committing a crime then why are you worried about being profiled. I find it hilarious because I purposely put on a accent in the line to mess with those around me :)
Posted by LogicalLib.org 2 years ago
LogicalLib.org
U miss the fact that many of the laws regarding drug's and crime were put in place to target a minority. Also, if no crime has been committed, what's the basis for stopping minorities more often? This isn't the borne identity, there's no way to predict someone has done something wrong based on their skin tone. Furthermore, this argument completely neglects the economic obstacles legally placed that keep minorities or others in oppressed impoverished situations that make it more economically viable to sell drugs then work for minimum wage. For example in many industries a white man who's gone to jail is more likely to be hired than a black male with no criminal record and appropriate qualification. Actually the argument just fails to take into consideration US history all together. I as a black female, who grew middle class, has 2 bachelor's degrees and working on a masters in the medical field, have been followed in a clothing store despite the fact that most shop lifters are middle aged white women. Why? Because I'm black and the fallacy that therefore I'm likely actively involved in criminal activity. Profiling is based on what people perceive another to be doing which is richly informed by media and ignorant stereotypes. That friend, is why its wrong, unjust, unfounded and just plain arrogant.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
perfectjflYaHeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
perfectjflYaHeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The best
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
perfectjflYaHeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.