The Instigator
SlobberChops
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Racism and 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 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,281 times Debate No: 18499
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

SlobberChops

Pro

I extend a challenge to those who oppose having factually based racial opinions and acting upon them (i.e. racial profiling): I defend the sensibility, morality, propriety, and plain good manners of having and acting upon such factually based opinions. It is con's job to convince me and the voters that it is improper, detrimental to society as a whole, and so on... in short, that we should oppose it.

It is not acceptable to regress into arguments based on overly semantic definitions of the terms being used, when the intent is obvious. It is not acceptable to show that it is detrimental to that group specifically, as one must live with their shortcomings - you don't hire a someone with down syndrome to program computers, you don't hire a guy with no legs to be a waiter; understandably, it doesn't matter that they are adversely affected in their opportunities and livelihood. And finally, it is not acceptable to use extreme examples of apparently factually baseless racial profiling and virulent hatred such as the holocaust and Nazism to defend your position.

Rather, the issue at hand includes, but is not limited to, such judgments as: should I be more cautious in regards to my personal and monetary safety when walking in a community populated mostly by blacks or Hispanics? should I, as a TSA worker in an airport, worry, and thus act upon my reasonable fear, that a Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist? is there any reason to skirt the truth and not say about a given ethnic or religious or ... group: 'those are generally ugly', 'those are generally bad workers', 'those are generally stupider', when statistics bear it out?

In other words, is there any reason to be opposed to the logic: 'Humans are genetically different than cows; humans are better at thinking, cows are better at pulling wagons and producing milk. Men vs. women, Whites vs. Blacks (yes, there are clearly genetic differences, this is not up for argument - one has white skin one has black. One generally has bigger lips... etc. These differences of course make no practical difference, other than aesthetics. But the point is, should statistics bear out some other difference, maybe it is also a genetic or cultural issue. I'm not claiming there are any though.), Christians vs Muslims, ... Thus, having found that genetics and culture do affect one's ability to think, work, produce, approach to human rights, ...., there is no reason to be opposed to acting upon factually based racial profiling, since it is a reasonable assumption.'

Round 1: Acceptance and overview of your approach and stance.
Round 2-3: Convincing arguments.
Round 4: No new arguments. Rather, now that wev'e narrowd things down to the real points of contention, let's sum-up our arguments convincingly.

Please, don't accept until Saturday. I will not have time to seriously respond until then.
Danielle

Con

At my opponent's request, this round will be used solely as an introduction and overview of my stance in this debate.

Pro has generated several questions surrounding the concepts of racism and racial profiling. Racism is defined as a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. This is the justification for racial profiling - a policy or system of government based upon or fostering such a doctrine; i.e., racial discrimination. Racism also entails the belief that a particular group is more likely to do or be XYZ based on their race.

In this debate, I will be raising a few key points. First, I will examine what exactly race is. While my opponent may mistakenly think it refers only to one's skin color or ethnicity, I will demonstrate that the concept of race is in fact merely a social construct with little to no relevance in regard to describing an individual. This will alter the way we ought to view race both in society and for the purposes of this debate. I will also explain why one's so-called race does not imply anything inherent about the individual, while assuming inherent traits about an individual is in fact an implicit tenant of racism.

Additionally, in this debate I will challenge the notion that racial profiling is beneficial. I will also examine whether or not it is lawful, or if it infringes upon one's constitutional or human rights. It is my position that profiling can in fact be detrimental and therefore counterproductive, indicating that it is therefore not a good policy to employ. Finally, I will prove that many of Pro's examples are either completely subjective or rooted in substantiated racism rather than factual merit.

That said, I'd like to wish my opponent good luck and I look forward to an excellent debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SlobberChops

Pro

SlobberChops forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Because my opponent has unfortunately forfeited the last round (leaving me nothing to respond to), I'll reply to the three initial questions he asked in the first round. Once he begins making his case, I will respond to his arguments and use them to segue into mine based on what I said I would be attempting to prove in this debate. My response in this round will be minimal and very general, because I do not have enough time to go in depth with my answers as I am very busy these next few days. At least I'm not forfeiting :) Anyway, Pro asked...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Should I be more cautious in regard to my personal and monetary safety when walking in a community populated mostly by blacks or Hispanics?

Crime - especially theft - happens in low-income communities where the people are poor, not necessarily black or Hispanic. While it's true many minorities reside in low-income neighborhoods, this has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with their class. People from a particular race are not inherently part of a lower class. Further, this question doesn't ask about walking through low-income communities in particular but rather minority communities. There is a high population density of black people in cities such as Baltimore, Memphis and New Orleans [1]. However these cities are not necessarily particularly dangerous as a result. I will expand more on this in the next round if need-be.


- Should I as a TSA worker in an airport worry, and thus act upon my reasonable fear that a Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist?

Terrorist acts are not carried out only by Muslims, so this would be a dumb assumption on the part of any TSA worker. Furthermore, this type of profiling is counterproductive as TSA workers would specifically worry about people who look a certain way (Middle Eastern men) while ignoring the reality that a terrorist could be a white woman with blue eyes. Again, I'll expand more on this in the next round if need-be.

- Is there any reason to skirt the truth and not say about a given ethnic or religious group that "Those are generally ugly," "Those are generally bad workers," "Those are generally stupider," etc., when statistics support those notions?

First off, saying a particular group (or even person) is ugly is entirely subjective. There is no objective standard of beauty. One person might be attracted to Latinos; another person may not. Second, my opponent's question is leading the audience as it asks whether or not people should be inhibited from speaking the "truth." This implies that what he is proposing is 'truth' whereas that is exactly what we're debating, and I'd say it's not.

For instance, Pro claims that certain racial groups tend to be "stupider." Of course the proper term he should have used here is "more stupid," not stupider, and using Pro's logic we should assume that because he did not know that, we should assume that white people are stupid since he is white. Obviously that logic fails.

First, it has not been proven that certain racial groups are INHERENTLY smarter than others. Most studies reveal that cultural and social environments play a role in shaping one's views toward education, etc. [2]. Second, there are various types of intelligence, so IQ and other standardized tests do not always portray an accurate view of who is intelligent and who isn't [3]. Third, one's ability as a worker is also not inherent to their race. Again, assuming that certain factors about an individual are INHERENT to their race is a primary tenant of racism, which the resolution and Pro advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion of this round, we ought to keep in mind how useless certain generalizations are. For instance, I'm sure that if you examined all the people considered to be bad workers, that the majority of them would have brown eyes. Should we be skeptical against hiring people with brown eyes because of that? Of course not. Doing so would be making a vast and hasty generalization that imposes unfair assumptions onto the individual. This restricts them from opportunities, allows for unnecessary discrimination and even fosters feelings of self-loathing and other tensions based on irrelevant characteristics. Anyway, that's all for now, though I look forward to expanding my case over the next few rounds. Hopefully Pro responds.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SlobberChops

Pro

SlobberChops forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Extend my arguments. I won't bother writing a round in case Pro continues his trend of not responding.
Debate Round No. 3
SlobberChops

Pro

SlobberChops forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SlobberChops 5 years ago
SlobberChops
Sure, but, should I find statistics from a reputable source, the burden of proof would be on you.

And, whatever reason you might argue that it should be attributed to, it won't change the facts that if not genetically, then culturaly, or enviromentally, or whatever, these statistics do in fact tend to occur by this group. (i.e. maybe it is because of say, poverty - but then again, it must be that this group tends towards poverty, since the statistics correlate by them.)

Secondly, if you suggest it does correlate with, say, poverty, it may be hard to defend should I find other groups who experienced the same poverty yet didn't produce the same results statistically. Then again, you could of course suggest that the other groups had some redeaming factor... and so on... either way we would return to the first point that it does correlate, whatever the reasons.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
could we argue that many "fact based race statistics" are incorrect and that the correlation is related not to skin but to other factors (like say, poverty)?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
SlobberChopsDanielleTied
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 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: I was looking forward to an interesting read only to be disappointed with the fact that not only is Pro a forfeiter but is also a flat-out racist. Good performance from Con answering those three initial questions getting points for arguments. Only Con used sources. Conduct to Con due to Pro's forfeit. SG to Con because Pro is a racist.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
SlobberChopsDanielleTied
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: And this could have been an interesting debate.