Have to argue FOR racial profiling. HELP!

Xeno

Yeah, in my ethics course, I am having a presentation/debate. It is a 3 on 3 debate, and my side has to argue FOR racial profiling. The exact debate topic is

"Racial profiling by law enforcement officials should be permitted."

The other side is against. This was chosen completely random, so I have absolutely no say in topics. Compounded by the fact that I know racial profiling is wrong, and that this is my first debate ever.

I am using google to look around, but it is REALLY hard. A lot of it is against, but the stuff that is for it is really weak.

Also, we have to ask them questions and they get to ask us.

Yeah. I foresee a lot of "Ummmmm"'s and "Ahhhhh....."'s from my side.

I am honestly struggling here. I am going to use 9/11 and profiling Arab men, but even that doesn't have much to stand on.

Anyone have any websites I can look at, or anyone got any good points for it that I can use? Anything would be great.

Btw, I live in Canada. Doesn't have to be Canadian focused, but I can't start reciting the American constitution or something. haha.

Thanks guys!

ceres

Whenever this sort of thing happens (I once had to argue that stem cell research is wrong when I don't actually believe it is) I find the best thing to do first is to look at laws already in existence, and see what they say. I don't actually know anything about Canadian profiling laws, but some of the fine print on those may be a good place to start. Look at the legal definition of racial profiling, the benefits that having a profiling system can provide, etc.

We can't do your homework for you, up to and including telling you what to argue, only ways to find what you're looking for and how to use them.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Tejs

In situations like this, try to frame the debate in a different light.

Your topic is "Racial profiling by law enforcement officials should be permitted.".

Your first step should be to define what each of those are; creative thinking and you can define things in a more positive light, and then your opponents will have to content with a definition that may not be useful to them. Then, frame the debate in terms of security VS rights. The social contract should do you well in something like this. Avoid using stereotypes.

Not sure what the exact format is, but you can also attempt to refute arguments from your predecessors - if your opponents arguments can be deconstructed and refuted, you can still 'win'. You may not even have to 'win' - you just have to make your opponent 'lose'.

wogi

I'll second that - It's going to be a lot easier to point out what's wrong with their argument then to make a strong argument for racial profiling, so start there.
Read up on the opposition's side. Chances are, they're thinking their argument is the easier one, and may not go in depth to prove their point, but, prepare for the obvious rebuttals to the security v freedom. Franklin's "Those who would sacrifice freedom to have a little security will quickly lose both." is a popular argument, for instance.

Cauld

Get demographic information on percentages of people in prison by race and compare it to their respective percentages of the population. Do similar things with gang members. Use false logic to tie them together!

Edit: You can do something similar with illegal immigrants I'm sure.

Robos A Go Go

You could also argue that racial profiling is permissible in certain, rare circumstances, then assert that the wholesale prohibition of racial profiling in every context is misguided. Rather, you'd prefer strict controls over when racial profiling is used.

This casts them as brash and you as the sensible middle ground position.

dispatch.o

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

You could also argue that racial profiling is permissible in certain, rare circumstances, then assert that the wholesale prohibition of racial profiling in every context is misguided. Rather, you'd prefer strict controls over when racial profiling is used.

This casts them as brash and you as the sensible middle ground position.

If you are looking for members of a hispanic gang, you do not search for black, white, purple or orange people. If you are looking for skinheads, white folks is a great place to start?

The argument doesn't stand up if you're inflexible, and I don't think you could win a debate with it, but try to gather statistically significant data where race was used (with success or illusion of success) and extrapolate.

Xeno

Thanks guys, this is really good stuff.

Keep it coming if you can. Really helping me a lot.

Comahawk

I agree with debunking their argument, one thing to consider is that they are likely to use the slippery slope argument, prepare to attack that, point out the errors in assumptions, etc.

saggio

Do two things: (a) expose the contradictions in the other side's argument. If they are putting forward a position that, at first glance, looks all good, show that, in fact, it cannot be held without giving up something else that everyone in the room will agree is a good thing.

(b) Draw an equivalence between your main argument and other acceptable forms of action.

edit: He did your homework, so it was edited. - ceres

Gdiguy

dispatch.o wrote: »

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

You could also argue that racial profiling is permissible in certain, rare circumstances, then assert that the wholesale prohibition of racial profiling in every context is misguided. Rather, you'd prefer strict controls over when racial profiling is used.

This casts them as brash and you as the sensible middle ground position.

If you are looking for members of a hispanic gang, you do not search for black, white, purple or orange people. If you are looking for skinheads, white folks is a great place to start?

The argument doesn't stand up if you're inflexible, and I don't think you could win a debate with it, but try to gather statistically significant data where race was used (with success or illusion of success) and extrapolate.

The arguments for racial profiling are based on statistics and, very generally, an argument about the best use of limited resources. The increased screening of Arabs is a perfectly sensible way to start the argument - is it possible that an 80 year old white grandma is going to try to blow up a plane? Sure... but the ratio of extremist arabs : non-extremist arabs is much greater than the ratio of extremist white grandmas : non-extremist white grandmas (even though they're both very low in absolute numbers).

Now, if you had infinite resources and infinite time to screen passengers getting onto an airplane, should you only screen Arabs and let the White people go on freely? No, you'd screen everyone. But if you can only carefully screen 1% of individuals, your probability of success is going to be significantly higher if you focus your limited resources on the groups that, relatively, contain higher proportions of people likely to blow up the plane.

You can make the same resources argument about anything - if you want to stop illegal immigration, for example, how should you distribute your border patrol officers? With unlimited resources, you'd fully protect and fully guard each border, and there would be no 'territory profiling' argument. But with limited resources, if we know that 10-fold more illegal immigrants are coming across the border with Mexico than the one with Canada, why would you put equal numbers of officers on each border? Yeah, it looks better that you're not pre-judging that Mexicans are trying to cross the border if you equally distribute... but from the data you have, it's clear that this is a less successful strategy.

ceres

I'm not sure why people are so eager to do your homework, but if continues I'm going to lock the thread and possibly give infractions because I already said not to.

Chases Street Demons

Let me give you a tip for debating in general, rather than specific information on racial profiling. An important key to a debate is to not give your opponents viable ground to attack your position. The best way to do this is to argue for your position but in the strictest terms possible.

A good example of this can be drawn from a hypothetical abortion debate, from the "Pro" side. If a "pro" candidate argues that they favor abortion, but only in the cases of incest, rape and pre-natal serious illness (such as spina bifida) then their opponent faces a very difficult path - how can the "Nay" side argue reasonably that they want to force mothers to bear the results of rapes, incestuous relationships and children with birth defects?

It's up to you to find a way to restrict your argument on racial profiling.

CuddlyCuteKitten

Most serial killers are profiled as single white males. Your opposition are probably going to base their entire case on profiling being discriminatory and racist so this is a great place to start. Single white males are not a weak group and no one likes serial killers.

Also point out the fact that profiling does work because of limited resources as said above and that it's not discriminatory. It would be if it was one sided but it's not because all the subjects of the profiled race also get safer because of better used resources, so they also gain something.

VisionOfClarity

You can also look into Israeli profiling measures for airline safety.

Mojo the Avenger

Regardless of what tact you choose, you should evaluate why you say "you KNOW racial profiling is wrong". It sounds like you based your opinion on popular opinion rather than evaluating the statement.

Holding on to that kind of emotional opinion is going to hamstring you in a formal debate. You should start at square one and look at the argument from both sides if you want to be prepared.

If I read you wrong feel free to ignore me.

ceres

Mojo the Avenger wrote: »

Regardless of what tact you choose, you should evaluate why you say "you KNOW racial profiling is wrong". It sounds like you based your opinion on popular opinion rather than evaluating the statement.

Holding on to that kind of emotional opinion is going to hamstring you in a formal debate. You should start at square one and look at the argument from both sides if you want to be prepared.

If I read you wrong feel free to ignore me.

This is a very good idea, something I had to do myself. Arguing against stem cell research, as a biologist, was a terribly difficult thing for me to do. I had to do a ton of research... what do the arguments for really say, what do the arguments against really say, and what does science really say? Why do I think it's wrong, and am I wrong? Instead of arguing baby-murder, I went with "The current laws don't actually say what people think they do, and the country just isn't ready for it to go further" or something along those lines. It wasn't a bad argument, just a weak one, but I'd rather have a weak argument that is real than win a debate with strawmanning or emotional blackmail, because that's just how I am.

You may have to go into your research with a really open mind and the idea that what you feel or believe may actually turn out to be wrong when faced with a little more education or perspective on a subject.

acidlacedpenguin

clearly, for demonstration's purposes, you should find a commonly stereotyped friend (obviously one with a sense of humor) and have them attend the debate while smuggling in a neon/fluorescent coloured toy gun and if the debate starts to go south have him/her jump up and wave the object around in the air like a crazed person but only long enough for you to say "there! racial profiling would have just saved your lives. POINT, SET, MATCH!"

and the award for worst possible advice to have given in the history of H&A goes to...

Jeedan

acidlacedpenguin wrote: »

clearly, for demonstration's purposes, you should find a commonly stereotyped friend (obviously one with a sense of humor) and have them attend the debate while smuggling in a neon/fluorescent coloured toy gun and if the debate starts to go south have him/her jump up and wave the object around in the air like a crazed person but only long enough for you to say "there! racial profiling would have just saved your lives. POINT, SET, MATCH!"

and the award for worst possible advice to have given in the history of H&A goes to...

You just reminded me of that scene in Four Lions

"What, just because I'm muslim you thought they were REAL bombs!"

kaliyama

Your discomfort with the issue is that racial profiling seems to be an endorsement of racism. You can distance yourself from that position by explaining criminality in differing terms - the usual black people commit more crimes argument, but explain that criminality is solely a function of economic development and educational opportunity. This has the added benefit of being true and lets people agree with you without agreeing with institutional racism.

Machismo

Xeno wrote: »

I am honestly struggling here. I am going to use 9/11 and profiling Arab men, but even that doesn't have much to stand on.

Anyone have any websites I can look at, or anyone got any good points for it that I can use? Anything would be great.

Btw, I live in Canada. Doesn't have to be Canadian focused, but I can't start reciting the American constitution or something. haha.

Thanks guys!

Do you have lee-way in your topic? I would suggest that racial profiling along with behavioral profiling may have room to stand on in a debate.

Typically, behavior is what raises the alarms at airports and stuff. If a person seems nervous, if they cleared their bank account, if you bought a one-way ticket, if their bags aren't traveling with them, if they have little to no luggage, these are indications that something is unusual and worth of further scrutiny. An Arab flying is not neccessarily worthy of raising alarm. An Arab flying without luggage, on a one way ticket, and having recently emptied his bank, wiring it to family may be a major problem and worth a close look.

Another situation that is common in multiracial cities:
Cops may look more closely at a black man driving in a white neighborhood, especially if the vehicle doesn't look like it belongs there (a beat up Ford in a Bentley neighborhood). Cops cast a careful eye on Latinos going through a black part of town also, since it might be a gang feud. The same though happens with white kids in a minority part of town.

Does it make it right? Maybe. Depends upon what you value. Freedom of movement. The evil and ignorance of racism or Safety, low crime rate, protection of the middle class.