Racial Profiling Should be Acceptable

My opponent's first argument doesn't stand up. It is not unlawful search or seizure to suspect somebody based on race as a factor. There's no way to even draw this wild conclusion. If racial profiling is abused, then this will happen, but I clearly state in my introduction that I advocate racial profiling without abuse. And using your fear-mongering examples of what 'could' happen doesn't stand up, but more on that in a moment. "I would like to remind my opponent that I have already conceded that it is acceptable for police to construct profile that includes and "considers" race." Then what exactly are we debating here? That's all racial profiling is. It considers the race of the individual as a factor (key or ortherwise) in determining the target demographic of suspects. If someone is poisoned, it isn't an impedment of civil liberties to profile a woman as the killer. If someone is robbed, it isn't bigotry to look for a poorer suspect. And one always can keep expections in mind. These points go uncontested, so I'm not exactly sure what my opponent is contesting. There CAN BE abuse where racial profiling is involved and if it was used as law enforcements only tool OF COURSE it would cause abuse and monger fear. But the whole point of racial profiling is that it gives yet another tool to police officers to use in their pursuit of justice. Used responsibily, IN TANDOM with other law enforcment tools, it can be effective in profiling suspects. The FBI's BAU agrees. "When a crime has been committed race and other identifiers should be used to exclude possible suspects as a means to avoid stopping and searching innocent individuals. Note though, using race to exclude people from search is not the same as using race to include people in search." No, it is the exact same thing. You're engaging in semantics here. Saying, whites aren't guilty of this, asians aren't guilty, native americans aren't guilty... so it must be blacks. Is no different then simply using the precedent of such a statistic to determine that 'blacks' are the target demographic. This is splitting hairs and nothing else. "Including an individual in a search because of race promotes a breach of liberty." It isn't 'SOLELY' because of race. Race is a factor. You contested this point moments before. Is it a breach of liberty to use a person's gender as a reason for search, how about age? Heigh? Weight? Upbringing? Socio-economic demograph? All these things are done. Racial profiling just has a bad stigma because it has been abused in the past and because people can't get over the concept that while everyone is intrinsically equal, NOT everyone is the same. Once more: 80 percent of serial killers are white. Using this as a key factor in a racial profile is good policework, not a breech of liberty. No one is arguing for race being a "prominent factor," and by that I assume you mean "Sole-determining-factor" or "main factor." It should simply be allowed to be a 'factor.' My opponent doesn't understand that sometimes, if the only information you have to go on is race, you cannot stop or search anyone, because it isn't enough information to go off of. You need corroborating evidence and supporting facts before you can proceed with a search. "It appears that we may be in agreement that using race as a primary and key factor in deciding who to stop search when trying to apprehend a criminal does not warrant the grave breech of the freedom given to us in the 4th amendment." My opponent doesn't seem to understand what racial profiling is. It is not, automatically stopping and searching 'the black guy cuz we don' trust him.' It is statistical data and use of crimonology to determine likelyhood of guilt so you can narrow your pool of suspects or expand it depending on the situation. It is common practice in the FBI and should be allowed and not frowned on in other forums as well. "An Arab Islamic terrorist could clearly exploit the situation by recruiting a South East Asian radical Muslim with a 10 year old daughter. If using racial profiling in security, which of the three would have the best odds of getting illegal contraband through?" Sure he can. What's your point? He can exploit the same situation even without racial profiling. Nobody is saying racial profiling will always be the method of solving a case, but that is why law enforcement has multiple methods of determining guilt. I simply suggest that they should be allowed one more, 'statistics and demographics in targeting suspicious groups.' In the final point my opponent is once again fear-mongering. Saying that everyone will gang up on the out-group. This is ridiculous for the fact that different crimes call for different out groups. If a serial killer is involved, you'd be wise to be wary of white males on dark streets in alleyways. If a robbery spree is going on in a poor neighborhood you would be wise to watch out for the black teenage male with a hoody on and gang tattoos. If a poisoning is reported, you should be wary of the woman next door who is fretting and pacing back and forth in the living room. Statistics are used all the time in determining safety. Society also employs common sense though. And saying that racial-profiling always is abusive and causes hate and discrimination, is the same as saying using gender, age, wealth, hierarcy, occupation or even ideology as a means of limiting the suspect pool will cause bigotry and hate. This is prepostorous and I discard your study as ludicrious. Appeals to authority don't satisfy me.