The Instigator
Angelrod760
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Stereotyping

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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,134 times Debate No: 20011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Angelrod760

Pro

I believe stereotyping is an important factor for our safety. Stereotyping is defined as using context clues or one's 6 senses to view an individual or situation and assume a broad summary. This can help when safety is of concern. Being able to stereotype someone can lower your risk almost instantly of potential threats into your comfort zone. In every situation there are pros and cons. I feel the pros considerably out way any con in this situation. I would certainly rather be safe then sorry when it comes to my well being.
imabench

Con

If the pro is arguing that stereotyping should be used to keep us safe ten really what is being argued us police profiling....

Police profiling is wrong for a couple Reasons, the primary reason is that if someone is interrogated or searched based on the color of their skin or their speaking style under police profiling, then that is the ONLY reason they are suspects in the first place. The 14th amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, and a search authorized almost exclusively on the color of ones skin can certainly be seen as unreasonable...

The second reason is that it does not always yield desirable results. The underwater bomber for example wasn't Arab, he was black with ties to Nigeria who almost succeeded in blowing up a plane on Christmas day, if we were to rely on racial profiling innocent Arabs may be searched while others, like the underwater bomber who is up to no good, would be able to bypass security... Another example came in the killings in Norway that initially were believed to be a terrorist attack was actually the work of a Christian extremist callin for a crusade against Islam. If the killings could have been prevented then through profiling the wrong man would be examined whereas the true culprit would still be able to accomplish his goal..

On another note, people only have 5 senses, and when it comes down to profiling you only use one of them when suspecting someone. That would be our eyes since you are suspecting a person based entirely on their appearance, and nothing else.

Police profiling should not be legal because it results in illegal searches and seizures and may lead the police to investigate the wrong guy or wrong type of people while the true culprit gets away
Debate Round No. 1
Angelrod760

Pro

Scenario #1:
Your child has been kidnapped by a white male thug. The suspect is known to be within your city limits. The police with your case see's a car with 2 guys in it that look to him like a white male thug, based on his haircut, clothing and posture. Since racial profiling is illegal he has to pass up this opportunity. If he was allowed to use racial profiling, he could stereotype and assume the driver and passenger "IS" a white male thug based on his haircut, clothing and posture and of course race. He pulls the car over, searches and finds your child in the trunk.

Would you be glad that this police officer used racial profiling to find the suspects.

Scenario #2: A police officer knows of an area infested with drug trafficking and relations. He has arrested 10 people from this area involved in drugs. Lets say 9 out of 10 people he has arrested were black males, driving 1970's model cars, with long white t shirts and braided hair. I feel he has the right to search the person's car if he fits the description, since there is a 90% guilty chance based on this similar stereotype of past arrests. If a person has nothing to hide or has not committed a crime, then there should be no reason to be scared during a search. It will keep the streets clean.
imabench

Con

..........

Scenario 1) that's not racial profiling at all... An example of racial profiling would be a cop getting reports of a gas station robbery and decides to look for a black teenager with baggy pants as the suspect, based only on the cops perception of who they think would rob a gas station... In your scenario a description of the suspect was reported, and cops now look for that person based in known evidence of what the suspect looks like, not based in who te cop thinks is behind the crime with no evidence to suspect people except based on his warped stereotypes....

Scenario 2) this just flat out doesn't make sense. All the arrested suspects ALREADY have ties to drugs so that already shows how the cop is using evidence, not profiling, to make an arrest. As for te car of the car fits a DESCRIPTION of the car the criminal used then again that's not profiling. If a cop heard about drug activity and then only began to look for owners of cars from 1970, THAT is profiling and should be illegal because if my dad likes to collect old cars from the 1970's then he would be viewed as a suspect of a drug related crime ONLY because the cop doesn't like how his car looks....
Debate Round No. 2
Angelrod760

Pro

I see you are arguing scenario 2.
Actually scenario 2 makes perfect sense. He has arrested 9 people with a similar description. So he can conclude that 90% people with that same look within that area have a high chance of being involved with drugs. He's just using past experience to identify a potential crime. Even if its a person he has never seen before, if that person has that look...then most likely he is up to no good. The worst that can happen is that the person is searched and the police find no incriminating evidence. And the person will be sent on his way. There is nothing wrong with precaution.

From your past experience and media you can pretty much identify a gang member if you see one based off his clothing.
If you saw 6 men dressed in causal clothing (slacks, button up shirt, tie and dress shoes) in front of your house you would probably not feel threatened at all and proceed into your house.

Now if you seen 6 men dressed with long white shirts, baggy jeans, red bandannas wrapped around their heads, with lots of tattoos...I guarantee that you will feel slightly threatened and will assume they are up to no good. Not because they have done anything wrong, but because they fit a general description of gang members that you have heard about in the past. Also you probably have heard that gang members commit crimes. California actually has a "Gang Enhancement Law" that prohibits the association of gang members.

So imagine a police officer seeing these exact two scenes. What group would you search and question based off their looks? Obviously the one who like crime makers. There is nothing wrong with this because everyone uses stereotyping everyday whether they know it or not. So if you can do this, then why is it not ok for a cop to do it to protect us of our saftey?
imabench

Con

2) P1) the worst part about that is that an innocent person may be searched or possibly even arrested based only on how try look, not an actual description or any actual evidence the person may have done it... If 90% of the criminals look similar there is still the other 10% involved in crimes. If cops profile on who thu think committed the crimes they could be searching for the wrong people while the true criminals can evade capture.

As for the rest of this argument, The Pro admits that the gang members have done nothing wrong, yet he is still comfortable letting the police arrest them for crimes they did not commit based solely on their appearance. Even your last paragraph is showing how you suspect those type of people "based only on how they look"

Police profiling is wrong because it is unconstitutional (conceded by Pro), it relies exclusively on stereotyping (overlooked by Pro), and because it could result in unethical searches and arrests of innocent people while the true criminal roams free (conceded by the Pro)

I thank the pro for an interesting debate and I would also like to thank the voters for reading
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mrbusy 5 years ago
mrbusy
Interesting points. I understand the US has history of police-profiling and people are naturally against it. but in other part of the world, allmost all societies use stereotyping as useful tools and it is actually helpful for the health of organization. Even profiling by racism also works for preventing criminals out of society and police in general use this technique very often. Of course there can be increased inconveniences, but it is effective.

As a non-american, I think America has been too much idealistic on race. Some race diffinitely more dangerous to specific culture/nation. than others not because they are inferior or inherently hostile but historic reasons.
Posted by Angelrod760 5 years ago
Angelrod760
Yes I stereotype.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Now that you've shared your feelings, what do you think? Are You the stereotypical non thinker.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Angelrod760imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros case was not very well established and his analogies were refuted convincingly by Con. I think Pros biggest mistake was in allowing Con to shift the argument from an individual stereotyping for their own personal safety, to allowing stereotyping as an acceptable practice by law enforcement. From there he had little chance.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Angelrod760imabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tries to argue safety, but fails to point out why that is the Police job. He then uses hypotheticals and argues for a Police State. Con rightly rebuts the hypotheticals.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Angelrod760imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I completely agree with Pro's general stance, but his argument is flawed, especially due to his use of illogical analogies. Con wins this one.