Police Should Not Racially Profile

I shall begin by rebutting my opponent's position and then move onto my own. "My opponent begins by saying that racism is not morally incorrect. This is outrageous. In the history of the United States, we have fought against racism with great vigor. So, in making this argument, my opponent is in fact supporting racism. If we go along with my opponents proposed path of racism, it will only lead to increases in racism and more acute cases of racism, which will eventually send the US into a backwards spiral contrary to everything we have worked for." First of all, yes I of course acknowledge that what I am advocating is within the realm of racism. HOWEVER, racism nowadays holds an extremely negative connotation. By saying I am supporting this, I am *not* advocating unprovoked, unjustified, or unreasonable discrimination against any race. This is what, as my opponent puts it, we have fought against racism with great vigor and will send US in a backwards spiral. What I *am* advocating is the utilization of just, reasonable methods to aid police force, which is not negative at all. "My opponent completely misunderstood my mention of lynching, which did not say that police should lynch members of a certain race, but said that people HAVE been lynched on the matter of race, which shows that it is a more defining characteristic of a human being in this case." Lynching and its history is quite irrelevant to the discussion of legal criminal investigation. Thus "this case" is not relevant to this debate. "My opponents entire case bases around his statistics argument, which states that the police should be able to use any statistics to aid them. Using these racial statistics massively inconveniences all members of the race that has a statistic stating that it is more likely to commit crimes. Police are going to stop members of this race more, they are going to commence more searches, etc." That is the idea. It doesn't massively inconvenience them, its just increased law enforcement. "This is a blatant case of racism, because they are discriminating against the race with more criminal statistics." Exactly. "Innocent civilians of this race are being held accountable for something that other members of their race are doing, which is wrong." They are not being held accountable, police suspicions are simply being increased. How is this wrong? You seem to operate under the assumption that all forms of racism, even socially beneficial ones, are undeniably wrong and fail to provide any contentions as to why this is the case. "I would also like to remind the readers of our US constitution, which guarantees equal treatment to all US citizens. In this case, the constitution is not upheld when the police discriminate against members of a certain race." I assume here that my opponent is referring to Ammendment 14, though he does not say. This ammendment states that "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This phrase means that a law cannot apply to one person and not the other, and has nothing to do with the matter of evidence-based criminal investigation. My opponent's argument is evidently fallacious . "I have shown that racial profiling is a form of racism, and that racism is an incorrect action to take. The Constitution reinforces this and shows that my position on racism is in fact the correct one." You have shown that it is a form of racism, true, but racism under the agreed upon definition should hold no negative connotations; furthermore, I agreed that it is racism, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. You have not proven that racism is an incorrect action to take, but rather assume that it is without any reasons. As I have noted, your argument regarding the Constitution is fallacious, so in essence, this entire voting point my opponent professes is null. "My opponent has taken a pro-Racism stance, therefore supporting discrimination. I quote my opponent: "Why is racism (predisposition to a certain race) bad when it is statistically proven? Why is it morally incorrect?"" Again, you are simply stating facts over and over and hoping that they can form into an argument by yourself. This is not an argument, as I willingly admit that it is discriminatory based SOLELY on the definition, NOT on the connotations. "It is morally incorrect in the same way that slavery is morally incorrect, and this is a fundamental part of American philosophy." This is a fallacious analogy: slavery was for no reason, racial profiling is for a very valid reason. You say that a fundamental part of American philosophy, yet provide no proof, leaving this argument incredible. Again, this voting point is negligible. As I have shown, it is logical and moral to use statistics to aid law enforcement, regardless of the nature of such statistics.Throughout this debate, my opponent has constantly failed to provide an argument and assumed that what I was contending was inherently incorrect. Because he has failed to provide any valid argument or rebuttal to my contention, I must ask for a Con ballet. Thank you.