We just got our topic, it was something like:
"Resolved: Racial profiling is nesecary for national security.
I'm looking for some basic ideas/philosphies right now, just to work on prima facie case. I'm affirmative by the way.
Normal Lincon-Douglas debate style:
Aff. Constructive
X-exam
Neg. Constructive
X-exam
Aff. Rebuttal 1
Neg Rebuttal
Aff Rebuttal 2

I'm not asking you to do my debate for me; I've got a couple good points already, but just want to make sure I don't miss anything.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

good boy.

youll prolly win a debate in anything. and the more i help you, the less chance you have of winning. with that said;

look @ court cases.
try to establish that you aknowledge that profileing against a race is bad, unfortunate, etc... then try to prove that it is legal and necessary.

how is it legal? i dont know, use court cases (you can prove anything through them). make sure you define terms like profiling/security/race in ways that are advantageous to your arguement.

try to find fallacies in the opposition's arguments http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html you can rip them a new one if you are good.

__________________
I get more ass than a toilet seat. All shapes/colors/sizes.

caution:
http://girlvideos.blogspot.com/

look at it from the con side so you understand what their main points will be, than just assemble the meat of your arguement around those.

Also look for something that will catch them offguard towards the end. The more you know about their thinking the easier this will be

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

- How many old ladies in wheelchairs have hijacked planes lately? = Limited resources, can't search everyone, makes sense to search those who are committing the acts.

- IIRC there was some talk about some sort of computer program created by al gore(of all people), a good time before 9.11 that when given a certain amount of data would produce a list of possible suspects, it turned out it correctly identified 16 of the 9.11 hijackers as possible terror threats. Sadly the program was never implemented. I think I heard it in a documentary, I'll try to find it if you want.

Problems:
- He'll probably try to hit you with equal protection clause claims (14th amend), which states any statue aimed at strict scrutiny classes (race, religion, or ethnic origin) there must have a compelling gov't interest and a statute narrowly taliored to meet that interest. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...pcscrutiny.htm Because the gov't runs security then this becomes an issue, though interesntingly enough if airlines ran their own security they could search whomever they wanted as it is not gov't action and thus no violation of protected rights.

Alex, probably knows a lot more about this shit than I do, plus it also hurts to have one's notes and reference materials a 1000 miles away.

__________________
Bean181818: some guy came up just grabbed my hand and starting massaging it, since it wasn't you, i told him to fuck off
xcrunman02: yeah only I can do that, i don't need some gook trying to get with my life partner
Bean181818: i've been faithful
xcrunman02: me too
Bean181818: peck tried to get all this but i told him this was all taken, all of it!

Bonch, look into how hard it is for an arab to fly into and out of Israel. They have to get there like 5 hours before their plane takes off. They know this and plan accordingly and we never hear them complain about civil rights violations.

Big difference between civil liberties and common sense

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

I think Steve's advice is good. I think you have to acknowledge that your opponents have valid arguments (not simply try and dismiss every one). What if you approached it an attitude of

"Yes, my opponents make some valid arguments and have some legitimate concerns. Nobody denies that the protection of civil liberties is a cornerstone of this great nation. And [not but] because, we live in dangerous times, keeping our citizens secure is a vital mission of our government. This is a delicate balance we have to walk. Criminal profiling, with race of course being a factor, is a vital tool to law enforcement officials in fulfilling that mission. The question is not whether or not to use this tool, but how to have the proper oversite to ensure that it, like any other law enforcement tactic, does not go too far."

I think this spins it into a question of degrees rather than a "is it evil or not" discussion. I think this would be an easier argument to win.

BTW, I'm not much in favor of racial profiling.

you could contrast the security profiling - which is really just a threat assesment, against the true "profiling" that was done in the name of the war on drugs.

There profiles were used as "reasonable suspicion". If you looked a certian way and where in a certain area, that was enough to search you and sieze property.

Anyone going through airport security can be searched at anytime. That doesnt hold true for driving on the highway. However, if you fit a certain profile in the highway, that was reasonable suspicion to stop and search a person. People even had large sums of cash siezed for no reason other than that they fit a profile.