The Transportation Security Administration was created in response to the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA. Its stated mission "to protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement." Has in fact had the opposite effect, slowing down air travel(1) and not making it any more secure(2). Institutions that fail and, in fact do the opposite of what they are intended to do should be shut down. The TSA does the opposite of what it is intended to do, therefore it should be dissolved.
The TSA was founded to prevent bombing and terrorist attacks. It has been doing a good job with it. Imagine how bad it would be without it. It slows down air travel but you won't have to worry about that when your dead because of some bombing or terrorist attack.
You acknowledge that the TSA has made air travel more inefficient. You provide no evidence when you claim that they "[have] been doing a good job [preventing bombings and terrorist attacks]." Imagining how "bad" it would be without it is easy, because, if you read my second source, you would see that undercover DHS agents were able to sneak weapons and explosives through security at major airports 67 out of 70 times. That is an unacceptable failure rate. The TSA has not made travelers any safer. The terrorists have succeeded at slowing down airports and scaring travelers. Air marshals are a much more effective and efficient method of preventing such attacks. Indeed, the passengers themselves stopped a potential attack in 2009 when a man smuggled explosives past TSA security and onto a plane (3). So obviously, passengers still do have to worry, as they are the last line of defense. The TSA doesn't dissuade extremists from trying to smuggle weapons and bombs onto airplanes, as the DHS agents proved, where there is a will, there is a way.
Technically my opponent isnt proving that the TSA does more harm all he/she has stated is that the TSA is bad. This doesn't go with the resolution. The TSA has prevented many attacks. My opponent stated that 67 out of 70 times TSA has prevented an attack. That is better than 70 out of 70 times. To add to that this doesn't prove that the TSA does harm. It just proves that it has some flaws.
Proving it does more harm than good is easy. The TSA's budget was $7.55 billion in 2015. It is more difficult to calculate the economic ramifications of all of the passenger's time lost waiting in a security line, however it is clear that it must have a negative impact. The TSA in itself has, in fact been a sort of terrorist organization, racially profiling people and doing fruitless cavity searches on innocents. Researchers at Cornell University conducted a study which found that because of doubts concerning the ability of the TSA to keep people safe, more travelers are driving instead of flying, leading to as many as 500 more fatal motor vehicle accidents a year (4). In fact polls have shown that most passengers do not feel the TSA makes flying any safer. In a poll done by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service of Cleveland, 85% of respondents said "TSA security measures [do not] make [me] feel safer when [I] fly?"(5).
So The TSA wastes a bit of time when you through their lines. I think that the TSA rather plays it safe than sorry. They will check innocents because they want to check to make sure there are no break ins. Bombers or terrorists always go under cover they are always looking like innocent old ladies or whatever looks most innocent. The TSA is wasting a bit of time searching every one. The TSA makes me feel like Im safe in my eyes its just a way at looking at it. The TSA shows many people how protective they are. I haven't seen any harm done to me or anyone else at the airport except that we have to wait a couple min in line. Thank You for this Lovely Debate opportunity. I had a great time debating you.
Reasons for voting decision: Several gramatical mistakes (missing commas, incorect capitalization, etc.) made by Con give Pro spelling and grammar. Also, Pro used sources that I found to be somewhat reliable, while Con used no sources at all. Finally, Pro also was able to meet his burden, while Con was unable to meet the burden of refutation (the burden to disprove Pro's case). For these reasons, my vote goes to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.