The Instigator
WolfSpirit223
Pro (for)
The Contender
313233qwe123
Con (against)

Should airplanes have an visible armed officer(Fire marshal) on board?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
313233qwe123 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2016 Category: Places-Travel
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 849 times Debate No: 98245
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

WolfSpirit223

Pro

I would like to start off this debate by defining a Fire Marshal. A Fire Marshal is different from an Air Marshal. Back in the 1970s, Fire Marshals were armed officers who wore their uniforms on a plane. They were stationed their for the travelers protection. The difference between Fire Marshals and Air Marshals was the fact that the Fire Marshals were trained in the technology and inner workings of the plane. They were knowledgeable in how to pilot the plane in dire situations. Unlike Air Marshals, Fire Marshals were trained to disarm bombs if any terrorists brought one on board and in hand to hand combat.
313233qwe123

Con

OK I would like to start by refuting your points, then introducing my own points.
If a terrorist plans to plant a bomb or hijack a plane it is most likely that the terrorist is just as highly trained and armed with a weapon and works together in a group so in the rare event that a terrorist attempts to hijack a plane, the terrorist will most likely overpower the Fire Marshal.

Now I will state my own points
A highly trained Fire marshal would be very expensive to hire
The government simply doesn't have the money on hiring Fire marshals.
After the 9/11 event, all american airports was drastically improved with armed guards, security cameras, metal detectors,etc
Its almost impossible for a terrorist to get aboard with a weapon. While a group of terrorist can take the fire marshals weapon and hijacking would be easier for terrorist, so fire marshals would be a complete waste of money.

Now for my second point
Fire marshals would be useless
The fire marshal`s job on the plane is to protect the passengers but terrorist can and will take hostages so that fire marshals cant do anything about it. Having a Fire Marshal instead of helping protect people, its putting more risk on the passengers.
Debate Round No. 1
WolfSpirit223

Pro

First off, you've basically restated your first point by saying they are useless in your second. You say the terrorist, or anyone who is a threat to the passengers, would take down the marshal with ease and high jack the plane. Yes this may be true, but a pilot can't fly the plane if he's got a knife to his throat. But the objection misses the mark because no one is necessarily saying the pilots have to "lead the charge" in disarming a hijacker or terrorist. Allowing planes to have an armed fire marshal is simply a common sense approach to making sure the hijacker or terrorist does not gain control of the plane.

As for money? Well, according to goa.org(Gun Owners Of America.org) Brad Rohdenburg, an American Airlines captain from Meredith, NH, states "There are pilots who have sharpened their belt buckles, screwdrivers, pens, etc., so that they might have a prayer of defending their $30 million jets from guys with box cutters, knives or guns."
In fact, fire marshals aren't incredibly expensive. The hiring price can vary, and the highest so far has been $1,308. Before you say anything, compare that to a $30,000. During 9/11, we lost four planes. That's $120,000 right there, give or take. With that amount of money, we could of hired about 90 fire marshals. It is much better to spend a little over $1,000 for protection than lose $30,000 because a pilot and a few passengers couldn't defend themselves.

That's pathetic. The USA is probably one of the most free countries out there. Yet we have private citizens who must resort to sharpening their belt buckles to defend themselves! Congress and the FAA should stop forcing pilots to resort to such weak methods of self-defense. Especially when there's already people trained in the event of an actually attack. If not, then our nation must be prepared for more planes being used as human missiles.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 313233qwe123 1 year ago
313233qwe123
Im so srry i was a trip with my family sorry for not being able to reply to you Wolf Spirit
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.