The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Airport security is too extensive

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,151 times Debate No: 31255
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Airport security seems to be very important and media follow any security breaches very carefully.

What's up for debate:
It seems somewhat redundant to me that airports have such a great security while other public places where masses of people tend to be have little to no security at all.
Considering how many people have access to planes and how it's very possible to abuse certain weaknesses and so forth it seems rather redundant to me to have such a great security at all.

I realize that airports can be lucrative points of distribution for illegal substances and other criminal activities and I don't want to debate security issues that concern those kind of things.

This debate is about the extensive search for items that can be harmful in any way, flight black lists, background checks and other checks that as expensive as they are annoying. I feel as though planes are overrated when it comes to terrorism.

I personally am not sure what position I have on this matter, which is why I started this debate in the first place.


1. Polemic tricks are to be avoided. Be nice as taught by Sesame Street.
2. All factual statements must be supported by sources.
3. Sources must be credible and easily accessible. No, wikipedia is no credible source.
4. The first round is about the rules and position of each side. Save specific arguements for later.

I hope someone is willing to take the position as my opponent and I hope he'll be able to shape my opinion on this matter.


I will allow you to expand your arguments in Round 2.

I am debating for keeping airport security as it is. The threats to our transportation system are vary serious and security is needed to prevent them.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. I hope we will bring up some good points that are worth to be considered.

I consider the great amount of security at airports to be rather redundant.
One of the few purposes for the increased amount of security is the seemingly looming terrorist threats caused by few events that could maybe have been prevented, had the places they happened at more security measures.
However, while those security measures might have prevented great events such as 9/11 or London's bombings, the vast amount of public places and other transportation systems that are crucial to local infrastructure makes it impossible keep high standard of security up in general.
Such attacks are by definition caused by civilians who intend to disturb the public with horrible actions. They have no intention of saving themselves and are therefore devoted with their lives to harm others for whatever purpose they might follow.
The next horrible attack might happen at a concert or a public demonstration.
Increasing security after such an attack is a sign of desperation and all it does is limit the freedom of the people.

I also see no point in prohibiting items such as small knives from airplanes.
While it surely is possible to harm someone with them, it hardly is possible to threaten the lives of many with them.
We can bring knives to other places such as trains, I see no reason why a plane should be treated any different than a train in that regard.
One could argue that a terrorist could hijack a plane by threatening to harm someone with that small pocket knife.
If one really wants to make a plane secure against hijacking one way of achieving that would be making the doors to the cockpit cabin impossible to open during flight by plating them and whatnot. That would surely be more efficient and less expensive and annoying.

All in all the high standard of security might prevent some attacks that will just happen elsewhere instead.
I see it as a reaction of fear.


I will admit, my opponent has made some very well-rounded and accurate arguments. But I think that my opponent fails to realize that while the security may seem redundant, there are (or were) numerous attempts to hijack, bomb, and terrorize airplanes and airports. While many do think of tragedies like 9/11, this isn't the only event in which airport security was necessary.

Take a look at this example. Although it involves underwear, look at what the bomber attempted to do:

Attempts like these take place every day, and lightening up airport security will certainly do nothing to stop these threats.

Recently, the TSA allowed small knives on to airplanes. Many unions and organizations in protection of airplane pilots, flight attendants, and other jobs in the industry have protested against this decision.

With multiple knives, a would-be terrorist could certainly take control of a plane, and could easily make the pilots unresponsive or with too much lost blood and the terrorist could hijack the plane. In nations without as much security (we'll just say middle-east) car bombs, terrorist threats, and airplane bombings happen nearly everyday. I won't even include a source for that. Just watch the nightly news one night.

So summed up, it is very necessary to have security in airports and other places because of the nearly constant threats posed by terrorist organizations and radicals.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


gooddaygoodsir forfeited this round.


awoutas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by toady28 3 years ago
I would accept, but I have only been on an airplane once.
No votes have been placed for this debate.