Racial profiling is a useful tool for law enforcement and use of this should be encouraged.

I'm reading your argument and I'm honestly still confused. Where is 'profiling' already being used, and how is RP not being used there already? I'm not saying you need to give an entire description of the profiling process, but what crimes are profiles used in? Murder? Because, as I stated, most murders are done by someone with a clear motive, or they're never caught. I can only think of serial killers who don't have a clear motive, but most serial killers are white men, and most murders happen within the same racial lines. Also, you've never actually proven that race is such a big factor in the development of a person. What does that even mean? It seems to suggest that there's some natural difference between a black person and a white one, and not a socialized mentality forced upon the two people due to their environments which may vary wildly. No two black people have the same childhood. I don't really care about the FBI thing, so I'm not going to address it. I think the statistics are fairly useless for reasons I've already mentioned (that arrest stats tell us who is being arrested, not who is committing the crime). You say that "when you begin to agree that race can be used as a factor in the profiling process your anti racial profiling standpoint enters a gray area. " Sure, but what's your point? I mean, if you begin to agree that abortion is wrong then obviously somebody saying that abortion is right provides a gray area. But I'm not accepting that race can be used to profile cases. Oh, so you don't have one guy, you have four. You have completely swayed my opinion on the matter, and I now realize the opinion of four inconsequential professors is insurmountable. But seriously, it doesn't matter how many people agree with you. Unless the respective scientific communities agree with you, having a majority opinion is worthless. And from your own admission you don't have the majority on your side, because this debate hasn't even begun apparently in the psychological community. And yet, without clear, concise agreement from the scientific community, you are more than okay with citing a few papers that happen to coincide with your preconceived opinion. Perhaps it isn't the fear of being racist (as that hasn't really stopped white people in the past), I put forward that the professors in question might already be discredited. I mean, the whole "We're being censored by the majority! " is an argument commonly put forward by creationists too. How exactly is it that a lack of debate leads cops to be more racist? And what potential do you think racial profiling has? Your argument that ivy-league schools are beyond comparison to religious fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists is a rather elitist argument and completely without basis. Your degree doesn't make you right, I'm sorry to say. Agreement in the scientific community based off of peer-reviewed papers lends you some credibility. You have not fulfilled my last critique, actually. I have no clue what you mean by racial profiling. I don't even know what you're trying to say when you just brush off my point about black drug dealers. Let's say that a black person is more statistically likely to deal drugs. What follows from that? What does Officer Forrest do with that information that remotely helps him with his job? Racial profiling takes place before a crime has even been committed. It's the mentality that people of color are more likely to do crime, and so it is likely that most people of color do crime, which is fundamentally wrong. You might mean something different when you say racial profiling, but the word has a specific meaning for a specific, too often occurring situation in which black people are harassed and stopped more than white people. You've failed to communicate beyond vague musings what racial profiling is to you, how it could help police let alone the communities, or how race fundamentally plays a role in the development in a person. You carried the burden of proof into this discussion, and instead of communicating clearly your points, you've copied and pasted the same flawed argument. Having a handful of professors agree with you is nothing. Vague allusions to the promise of racial profiling is nothing. Empty promises that what you mean by racial profiling is not discriminatory are nothing. I enjoyed the debate.