The Instigator
Warturtle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GavinAurion
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The TSA needs to be abolished.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,096 times Debate No: 13802
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Warturtle

Pro

This debate does not need to be structured in any certain way, however I do know Policy debate terms, so you are free to use them if you wish.

I would like to start with these points:
1. The TSA destroys the rights given to use through the bill of rights.
2. It's a huge money-waster.
3. The TSA is ineffective.
4. The TSA allows the terrorists to win.

1. Take a look at the second and fourth amendments. I'd like to briefly summarize these. The second guarantees your right to possess a weapon, and the fourth states that you may not be searched (including your person), unless the searchee has a warrant, and you cannot obtain a warrant without probable cause.
The TSA flatly disallows you to carry firearms (or any other weapon) on to a plane. It is true that you could use these weapons to kill a pilot. However, what better way to protect a plane than for everyone to have a weapon? Consider 9/11. If everyone on that plane had had a weapon, they could have easily overtaken the terrorist, preventing the whole hooblah anyway.
Now, the fourth amendment. Need I even expand on this? They search EVERYONE. What probable cause could you possibly have for searching an old grandma, or a baby?
I think Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither."

2. Money wasting.
The annual budget for the TSA is 6.8 billion dollars, all of which is wasted. (more on this later).
This isn't all being spent on "security", mind you, but other things.
The TSA spent half a million dollars on an awards assembly at a lavish hotel! [http://www.deseretnews.com...]
The TSA also does not hire directly, but rather, through a hiring agency, which costs them 155 million a year! [http://www.concierge.com...]
This money is not being spent towards what we think it is. What better area is there to cut back?

3. They're ineffective.
The government tests the TSA every once and a while by sending "fake terrorists" into the airports, to see if they're detected. These results are confidential (hmm...I wonder why?). However, one of the test results were leaked. According to the Seattle Times, 20 out of the 22 fake terrorists sent into Newark International Airport went undetected. That's under 10% success rate. This isn't effective.
Keep in mind, though, that this was a government test. I'm sure they didn't make anyone shove a bomb into a "cavity", as it could happen in the real world. This brings me to my next point.
Anyone with a hazardous substance within a cavity (men have 12" of cavity, women have 24"), would not be detected by the new scanners. The same goes for people who use nondense explosives, such as powders or liquids (including the underwear bomber, who started all this nonsense).

4. They let the terrorists win.
The goal of terrorism isn't to kill people. It's to TERRORIZE people. Every time I walk by a TSA checkpoint, I remember 9/11. I remember the uproar. I consider who could be around me, possibly slithering past the checkpoint undetected.
That is what terror is.
Thus, by keeping the TSA how they are, we are breeding a false sense of danger. That's right; the government is terrorizing us. They don't do it on purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that they ARE doing it.

For those four reason, the TSA needs to be abolished.
GavinAurion

Con

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for opening this debate. A very appropriate time for this debate as well. I agree with my opponent in that this debate does not need a definite structure.

I'd like to make an opening statement concerning the resolved. Today, I am not here to prove the TSA if doing their job efficiently. My job is to present to you why it's existence is needed, no matter how much it actually helps.

Since the TSA is already the status quo, I will not be giving an argument on why the TSA shouldn't be abolished for this round, but let that answer for itself as I respond to my opponents argument.

1) The TSA destroys the rights given to use through the bill of rights.

Not true. I'll bring up both amendments individually.

2nd - Right to Bear Arms - Let me bring up two other institutions that need to be abolished according to my opponent. Let's abolish every school in America and let's abolish the Supreme Court. Extreme? Of course, but that's the chain of logic my opponent presents. All because an institution denies use of a gun doesn't mean that it's going against the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd does not apply when public safety is compromised due to gun presence.

How is safety compromised?

You say everyone on board an airplane had a gun, like my opponent suggests. Same concept as if someone were to yell "Fire!" in a theater. Mass panic on an airplane is as dangerous as any terrorist. Another situation involves collateral damage. Say a gunfight were to occur. A terrorist won't just admit defeat and stand down. There entire goal is to die to kill more people. If everyone had a gun, then what stops if from just killing as many people as possible before he was taken down? Here's the better solution. No one has guns, period. Pilot's cabins are much more secure and with new special licensing and training, they are able to fight back, addressing the security issue.

4th - No Unreasonable Searches - What about airline searches in the middle of a War on Terrorism is unreasonable? Are you saying we shouldn't do searches at all and let another underwear bomber, or worse, another 9/11 happen? My opponent brings up pleas for grandma's and babies. Does age really matter? Many times, criminals, from shop-lifters to bombers, have used small children to hide their dastardly deeds. As for age in terms of the elderly, a Afghan whose family was killed by a US bombing run is still going to hate America whether he is 29 or 99.

Other then those pleas my opponent made in his case, all searches are nessesary, because if ONE person slips through, then we'll have another 9/11 potentially, or another form of a large loss of life. Would you, as a passenger, feel safe if you knew that many of the passengers on board were not searched just because they "seemed" or "looked" okay? Searches not only ensure safety, but the give peace of mind.

2) It's a huge money-waster.

Okay, you've got me. Let's abolish the TSA for wasting money. While we're at it, let's abolish the US Government for wasting money and being $13,781,393,503,182 in debt as off 11:03 PM EST. By the way, the US Government also has a $6.8 dollar budget on Defense and Wars.(1) Note, that's the same figure as my opponent's stat on the TSA's annual budget.

All to say, it's the same as the gun rights point. If we should abolish the TSA for wasting money, then we would be abolishing quite a few (read: all) government institutions for wasting money.

As for the TSA hold some lavish party. Have you ever considered that the TSA most likely makes that much revenue, not to mention extra money? Not only that, but a company holding a special event shouldn't consitute the abolishment of the company. I'd also like to bring up the fact that my opponents report and article was dated back to 2004, far away from the current topicality of our debate, which focuses on the cost of current measures such as full-body scanners.

3) The TSA is ineffective.

I would like to request a direct link to the article about the less than 10% success rate of the TSA. I will respond to his point regardless, though.

First, depending on the date of the article my opponent presents, I would like to mention that the TSA is currently increasing security measures in many different ways, making my opponents evidence invalid for this debate. Second, I'd like to ask my opponent for an alternative.

Take the Chicago Police force for instance. With Chicago's immense crime rate, would you say that they are ineffective? Most Chicago citizens would say yes. Most Chicago citizens would also say they would rather have the police there then no one at all. Same applies to the TSA. They are there, and they are trying. It's better then nothing.

4) 4. They let the terrorists win.

My opponent brings up one thing in this point that the TSA is guilty of. The TSA is guilty and should be abolished because they give people a false sense of danger. First, the TSA is monitors by government, as is all security forces. Therefore, if anyone is to blame for breeding a false sense of terror, it would be the government and media. However, there is no false sense of danger. There is a real sense of danger, and there has been ever since 9/11. What my opponent is apparently convinced of is that the world of air travel is the exact same as it was before 9/11, which all of us know is not true. I sympathies with my opponent when he says he is reminded of 9/11 whenever he passes a TSA checkpoint, but I must stress that ignorance is not bliss. All because the checkpoint isn't there doesn't mean the danger isn't there, an

The TSA is one of the only defenses we as a country have against another 9/11. For the reasons I've stated above, I urge a Con ballot.

---

(1) http://www.usdebtclock.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Warturtle

Pro

1.Bill of Rights

1a. Right to Bear Arms
My opponent brings up the situations of a courtroom or school as a place where guns are not allowed. These are not topical to the debate, but I will go ahead and answer them regardless. A courtroom or school is a reasonable place to prohibit guns. A courtroom contains someone who is potentially willing to murder. For public safety, it is reasonable to disallow guns on the premises. In a school, students are unlikely to have guns, legal or not. The only viable reason a student would have a gun would be that they were actually planning on using it.
However, neither of these applies to a plane. Take this into consideration: What is safer?
A plane on which everyone has a weapon, or a plane on which only one person has a weapon?
(Before I continue on this point, I'd like to point out it is possible to get a weapon on a plane, even with the TSA. Look at Adam Savage's recent experiences, he got two 12" razors onto a plane. As stated in my proponent speech, it is possible to hide up to 12" of explosive in a human body. These are simply undetectable by TSA scanners)
If everyone can have a weapon, everyone can defend the plane. If only one person has a weapon, nobody can defend the plane, and the terrorist has the power.

"What stops a terrorist from just killing as many people before being taken down?"
The same could happen in a mall, or any other public place. It isn't exclusive to this debate and shouldn't be looked upon as a valid argument.
Mass panic can be a problem, yes. If there is a terrorist on a plane, panic is going to happen. Regardless of whether or not you have a weapon, everyone is going to panic. The only difference is that with a weapon, you can defend yourself, and potentially eradicate the terrorist, allowing everyone to calm down.

1b. Unreasonable Search
My opponent tends to compare my logic to other situations, so I will do the same.
There is a massive war on drugs being done here in our own country. Obviously, someone has to have the drugs in order for them to be a problem. Is searching EVERY house and car in this entire country a good solution to this problem? No.
Maybe it would be effective, and even eradicate drug usage in the U.S., but we simply cannot do it. That is what we give in exchange for having freedoms.
My opponent specifically brings up the Underwear Bomber. The bomber was not caught by old scanners, and it has been proven that these new scanners also would not have stopped the bomber. These new scanners are simply security theater, not genuine security.

"Would you, as a passenger, feel safe if you knew that many of the passengers on board were not searched just because they "seemed" or "looked" okay? Searches not only ensure safety, but the give peace of mind."

In fact, yes I would. Both Israel and the U.K. use Behavioral Profiling as their method of airport security, and it's worked wonderfully.

2.Money Wasting
My opponent states that almost all government agencies use money. The essential difference is that these agencies are not wasting money, they are using it proactively. The TSA is not. We need to pick the low-hanging fruit here, and get rid of non-essential money wasters.

My opponent also brings up the idea of the TSA paying for these things with it's "revenue". Where exactly would the TSA earn revenue? They definitely don't sell anything.

3.Ineffective
My opponent has requested a source. Here it is: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

As my opponent pointed out, the article was posted in 2006 and may be a bit outdated. However, the problem persists.
These new scanners, as I have mentioned countless times, cannot detect anything inserted into cavities, or any material that is nondense. Short of completely naked cavity searches, the TSA is not going to be able to stop every threat.

My opponent has requested an alternative. As stated previously, the U.K. and Israel use Behavioral Profiling as a method of weeding out the terrorists, and it has proven effective. Dog sniffers have also been suggested as a viable alternative.

4.False Sense of Danger
Sure, the media breeds a false sense of danger. They do that with a lot of things. Just look at product recalls, cancer stories, and the recent swine flu "epidemic". However, people tend to be wary of the media. They are not wary of the government. The government should not be breeding this false sense of danger! You claim that it is a real sense of danger. To quote an artice from forbes, "The odds of dying from a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds of dying from doing any of a number of incredibly mundane things we do every day. You are almost certainly more likely to die or be injured driving to the airport than you are to be injured by a terrorist once you're in the air, even without a TSA. Indeed, once you have successfully made it to the airport, the most dangerous part of your trip is over. Until it's time to drive home, that is."

I'd like to thank my opponent for bringing up an impressive argument, I look forward to the rest of this debate.
As I said before, if you would like sources for anything I said, just say the word. I'd be happy to provide them.
GavinAurion

Con

As before, I will simply respond to my opponent rather then bringing up an argument. Since my opponent's four point are the stock issues in this debate, I will answer all four appropriately.

1. Bill of rights.

I thank my opponent for answering my point even though he claims it is non-topical. I will prove, though, how they are topical. My opponent's case against the TSA on this issue is this. Because the TSA prohibits gun use, it is unconstitutional and therefore should abolished. The reason I brought up school's and the Supreme Court is because these are both institutions that do the exact same thing the TSA does. They prohibit gun use. That is why this was a topical point.

Again, my opponent still responded to the point, so I will continue this argument. My opponent points out specifically that school gun prohibition is reasonable. I agree. I also agree that gun prohibition on an airplane is reasonable. Think about it. I'll use the same argument as my opponent. On a plane, passengers are unlikely to use a gun, legal or not. The only viable reason a passenger would have a gun is if they were planning on using it.

Also, let's look at an example of what would happen with my opponent's proposed plan. First, panic in a gunfight on a plane would greatly outweigh that of one person having a gun. Say that a terrorist pulls out a gun, and immediately several people start firing. In a cramped area such as an airplane, civilian casualties will happen. Say that only the terrorist is the only one with a gun. He would not start a gunfight for several reasons. One, he would easily be overpowered, and two, he wouldn't have enough ammo. He would save it for when it really mattered, and that's for pilot cabin hostages. However, as I've stated in round one, pilot's are much more secure now then they were 2001. They can actually arm themselves.

"The same could happen in a mall, or any other public place. It isn't exclusive to this debate and shouldn't be looked upon as a valid argument. "
My opponent states that because this same thing could happen anywhere else, that my argument is invalid. This is simply not true and I really would like my opponent to elaborate on this. I will answer to what I do understand, though. The fact that we can prevent this on airplanes is something that is topical. All because it's harder to spot a random gunman in a mall rather than an airplane doesn't mean the TSA should just stop. Let's protect what we can. Unless my opponent would like to advocate a security force for malls. MSA anyone?

1b. Unreasonable Searches

My opponent brings up the war on drugs with Mexico. He states that it would be unrealistic and bad to search every house to find drugs. I agree. The TSA, however, actually is able to check everyone, making both examples incomparable.

My opponent brings up the underwear bomber and the scanners inability to work. Whether or not they work or not, is the answer really to get rid of them all together? If ten people have bombs and the scanners catch 1, then the scanners have helped.

My opponent also brings up Behavioral Profiling. Several things wrong with this. One, terrorists can learn to outsmart the system. They can't outsmart a metal detector. Our technology continues to get better and better, but behavioral profiling is constantly changing and evolving in random ways. Why change when we could just improve what we have? Also, the US air industry is much larger than the UK and Israel, making almost impossible to change even if it was better.

2. Money Waster

My opponent states that the TSA is ineffective and should be one of the first organizations to be cut. Ok. Then what? The point is, you're still working up the ladder. Cut one government agency down for money-wasting and you're threatening all of them.

Also, here is the TSA's 2010 statement on the revenue it generates, answering my opponent and proves they do make revenue. http://www.tsa.gov...

3. Ineffective

First, let's look at the TSA's statement on cavity searches.

"Being a risk based intelligence driven organization, the information I have seen out in public about body cavities and bombs I think is perhaps not accurate. There has been reporting about at least one incident involving … the Saudi Deputy Minister of Interior. The forensics on that are not dispositive as to it having been a body cavity," the TSA chief said. In 2009, a terrorist blew himself up in an attempt on the life of Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the nation's anti-terrorism chief. The Prince survived the attack.
Since a body cavity bomb needs an external triggering mechanism, there is a possibility current screening technology would pick up the trigger even though it could not detect explosives hidden in a body cavity. "So we are not going to get in the business of doing body cavities," Pistol said at breakfast. "That is not where we are."

Next, let's bring up my opponent's proposals. If we were to abolish the TSA, who exactly would be in charge of security? I propose if we do as my opponent says, let's not abolish and destroy the most secure air travel organization in the world.

4. False Sense of Danger

This entire point falls under one question. Is there a sense of danger. Again, I reply with this to my opponent. Do you really think that the world is exactly the same as it was pre-9/11? My opponent states that a person is more likely to get in a crash than get caught up in a terrorist act. It's true. Since 9/11, people have gotten into cars hundreds of billions of times, and thousands of accidents have occurred since that time as well. None of those thousands of accidents were the scale of 9/11, however, and that's where the danger is. Just ONE could cause another national disaster.

To summarize, we cannot just abolish the TSA. My opponent brings up several alternative answers. I have brought up the inherent problems with them, but even then, realize that if were to take any up, the government (for good reason) would assign these to the TSA.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to my opponent's next argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Warturtle

Pro

Again, I would first like to thank my opponent for bringing up an impressive argument.

1.Bill of Rights
1a. Bearing Arms
Here is why the idea of schools and courtrooms being untopical is valid. The original purposes of the second amendment are these:
• deterring undemocratic government;
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system,

A gun in a school or a courtroom does none of these things.
HOWEVER, a gun in a plane does two of these things. It facilitates a natural right of self-defense, and allows a citizen to participate in law enforcement. One could even argue it repels invasion.

In a school, as I have stated before, the only real reason to bring a gun is to use it. My opponent has adopted this same argument to be valid for airplanes, but that is simply not true. Nobody that is within a school (students), is going to be a police officer. They probably didn't just get back from a hunting trip. In fact, little to no students would have a concealed weapons license and use it, although an adult would. As you can see there are plenty of reasons a gun on a plane could and is useful.

Next, let's examine the idea of mass panic on a plane. My opponent states this:
"Say that a terrorist pulls out a gun, and immediately several people start firing."
However, then he goes on to say this:
"He would not start a gunfight for several reasons. One, he would easily be overpowered, and two, he wouldn't have enough ammo. He would save it for when it really mattered, and that's for pilot cabin hostages."
A terrorist, as my opponent has made evident, will not be pulling out guns in a cabin full of people and shooting.

"Say that a terrorist pulls out a gun, and immediately several people start firing."
I'll play along with this unlikely scenario anyway.
My opponent suggests here one simple thing: people are stupid. The minute someone pulls out a gun, people aren't going to go berserk. Just look at United Airlines flight 93. They didn't all flip on immediately. They were able to take control of the aircraft (which, even if the whole situation wasn't prevented in the first place, would have been made a lot easier with firearms), and prevented damage. Calmly. O.K., maybe they weren't completely calm. That's expected, they all knew they were about to die. They sure didn't go around killing everyone, though.

Back to the thing about the mall;
Panic is unavoidable in extreme situations. The only thing removing the TSA would do is make the situation less extreme. A guy with a gun surrounded by people with no guns is a lot more dangerous and frightening than a guy surrounded by other guys with guns. The idea that preventing panic is a good reason to establish a government agency is hogwash.

1b.
How is the government not able to check every house in the U.S.? It's not like they can't visit every house in the U.S., they do it with the Census all the time. They don't do it because it's ridiculous and unconstitutional. There isn't even any proof that the TSA has ever caught a terrorist in the first place.

Sure, it may be possible to outsmart behavioral profiling. You CAN, however, outsmart a metal detector, as has been made extremely obvious. Cavity insertion, or even worse, surgical implantation, can pass by a scanner with ease.

Behavioral profiling is not the only viable alternative, either.

Dog sniffers have also been suggested and proven effective (they are already in place in Hong Kong)
[http://www.wmbfnews.com... ]

"the US air industry is much larger than the UK and Israel, making almost impossible to change even if it was better."
Can I get a source for this?

2. Money Waste

How is "working up the ladder" bad? Obviously we'd have to stop at some point, but at this point we also need to START
at some point. The U.S. needs to cut money SOMEWHERE, and I think this is a good thing to cut.

To summarize, we cannot just abolish the TSA. My opponent brings up several alternative answers. I have brought up the
They charge the airlines and the passengers. That's called taxes. I fail to see how these "fees" qualify as justification to pay for lavish parties and outsourced hiring.

3.Ineffective

A bomb does not necessarily need an outside triggering mechanism. Couldn't it be timed? And even if it weren't a timer-powered bomb, couldn't a controller be put somewhere discreet, such as in an electronic within a carry-on? You can't tell me the TSA would catch these things.

Security could go one of two ways. Behavioral profiling or dog sniffing could be taken care of by the Department of Homeland Security, or, alternatively, you could have the airlines take it over. If an airline thinks security is important, it could easily implement these same systems, just without all the added disadvantages of unconstitutionality or increased taxes, and would stop contributing to federal deficit.

4. False Sense of Danger

"Just ONE could cause another national disaster."
You say this, but you also admitted that the TSA does not catch everything, here:
"If ten people have bombs and the scanners catch 1, then the scanners have helped."
The scanners are ineffective, and we can't prevent another 9/11. If someone wants it to happen THAT bad, it's going to happen regardless.

Is there a sense of danger? Yes. Is it necessary? No. There is no proof that the TSA have stopped even ONE terrorist.

Since this is my last chance to say anything, I'd like to say a few things.

1.Thank you GavinAurion for providing a strong and educated debate. It's been fun.
2.Thanks to anyone who's been reading for reading. I hope we've both provided exciting reading material, and I encourage you to vote.

Before I post I would also like to recap the points that have been considered.

1.Unconstitutionality
The TSA goes against our 2nd and 4th amendment rights. They are blatant about doing so, and the fact that other government agencies and laws to this also doesn't justify it.

2.Money
The TSA is using our money irresponsibly.

3.Ineffective
My opponent has failed to cite one instance in which the TSA was effective, and I have sourced and instance in which they weren't.
4.Letting the Terrorists Win
Obviously they breed a fear of danger in the hearts of Americans. Whether it is a rational fear or not has been debated, but at the time being I think the facts point towards the direction that it is not rational.

Thank you for reading! I look forward to the final con argument.
GavinAurion

Con

I will answer all four stock issues in this debate.

1. Bill of Rights

1a. Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)

This point comes down to two things.

One, should the TSA be abolished for allowing preventing gun use on a plane.

My opponent states my example of a school and a courtroom being places where guns are acceptably prohibited is faulty an nontropical. He says the reason why is because both places have valid reasons to prohibit gun use and a plane isn't. Again, I'll refer to the fact that a mass shootout in a plane will harm more people than if only the pilot and crew were armed. One huge flaw with my opponent's Wild West in a plane idea is this. The very second a bullet opens a hole in the plane (and there isn't enough metal to prevent this, not even considering windows), everyone in the plane is dead. Why? Oxygen doesn't exist in high plane altitudes. Humans need oxygen to live. Bullet gunfight = Very likely plane damage = Everyone dies.

And again, the best prevention is to just have no guns. Guns are not hidden to metal detectors, so the scanners in this argument isn't even an issue.

Two, my opponent says that mass panic wouldn't happen as well. We can't know for sure, but we can be sure that the above situation is likely in both scenarios.

1b. Unreasonable Searches

Again, this is post-9/11. Searching is completely reasonable and most people would freak out if they knew someone on the plane had passed screening.

On that note, my opponent says we should use other methods of searching. Ok. I agree. My opponent's right. The problem, though, is that my opponent thinks these things would be done by a completely new agency. This would be a complete turnaround on a set in stone government backed system. If there were to ever be a change in procedure, it would still be through the TSA.

2. Money-wasting.

My opponent says that getting rid of the TSA is going to help the national debt and we have to start somewhere. The TSA's $6.8 billion dollar budget takes up 1/19117.64 of the current national debt. Nothing. We are abolishing one of our country's lines of defense for that much of an increase.

3. Ineffective

I'll go ahead and say that my opponent's right with his alternate methods again. However, we still can't just abolish the TSA. Abolishing the TSA gets rid of everything that could be done to prevent a terrorist. The Department of Homeland Security already monitors the TSA, and having airlines monitor themselves will not work. Some airlines will be more slack on rules then others. Compromise one, you compromise the skies, which in turn compromises America.

4. Causing Terrorism

My opponent says that if another 9/11 will happen, it will happen. I firmly believe this to not be true. Doing so means that government has failed in it's most high duty, which is to protect it's citizens. Note: Government. Not the TSA. My opponent is basically saying we should not even try with this statement.

Again, I'd like to think my opponent for this debate and the spectators for following. I urge you all for a Con ballot.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
A good topic. Timely.

The Supremes ruled that since air travel is voluntary, the search required to travel is consensual. An opposing argument is that the government is still obliged to use the least intrusive methods possible to ensure safety, and that sniffer technology (that senses explosive vapors) and profiling are more effective and less intrusive. the premise that air travel is voluntary could be attacked.

After 9/11, cockpit doors were made so that hijackers could not break in. Terrorist strategy then changed to using a bomb to take down the plane. Guns are not relevant to that strategy. A bullet hole through the fuselage won't take down a plane.

The Israelis quit having the government do security in favor of letting private companies do it. They use behavior profiling, which includes interviewing each passenger to detect signs of nervousness and such. The US has a "trusted traveler" program whereby background checks are performed and less searching is done after that. One can also argue that the TSA ought to be abolished in favor each airline doing whatever security they want. Passengers could presumably choose less intrusion for less safety.

I think the resolution would be better with "should" rather than "need." A higher level of proof is required for "need" since dire consequences must be established rather than a marginal improvement.

The debate was fairly even. Both sides did a good job of setting up and following the structure of the debate. Both sides were short of references; there is real world data and Court decisions that apply. I gave the edge to Con, partly because "need" demands lots of proof, but Pro's handling of the rights issues didn't well reflect the tradeoff with security that Con pointed out. The rights are not absolute.
Posted by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
"Something I really took advantage of was the resolved. In the future, word it "The TSA needed to completely change their current policy" or "The TSA's current security policy is failing."

The thing is, I do the Congress event in High School debate, so I just took this entire argument (at least in round one), from my bill and speech I use in Congress. I need to adapt my future debate.org arguments this way, thanks :)
Posted by GavinAurion 6 years ago
GavinAurion
Something I really took advantage of was the resolved. In the future, word it "The TSA needed to completely change their current policy" or "The TSA's current security policy is failing."

It really does hurt the country more then help to get rid of an organization interlaced into everyday life. Win the debate by accepting the existence, but saying it should change.
Posted by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
Thanks :)
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
For one, you should probably just leave out the whole right to bear arms thing. Even if it is valid, it's never going to take the argument. You need to elaborate more on the hiring details, and the TSA's effectiveness. There have been many articles, and even segments on 60 Minutes about the many circumstances of TSA testing failures. Focus more on TSA, and give a short timeline, from before and after their inception. Then, debunk their existence by offering a more effective, less costly way to privatize airport security. Illustrate how this would make everyone safer, while also making the security process much less time consuming. Then see how many Pro ballots you get.
Posted by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
gavin.ogden, you said this:
"There were some arguments I was dying to hear from Pro that just never came up."

Could you expand on that? I use this topic in school a lot and I'd like to know what I could add.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
That was an outstanding debate! That was one of the best I've seen, recently. Thanks both of you for the time and effort. I have to say, Pro had some great arguments, but Con's logic made more sense for me. There were some arguments I was dying to hear from Pro that just never came up. In the end, I believe Con takes all arguments.
Posted by Warturtle 6 years ago
Warturtle
I would love to hear some critiques on this debate (at least for me, I can't speak for GavinAurion), so if you have some, please share them!
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
I'm getting that tingling sensation when I feel that I'm about to see a good debate.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
*like*
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AlexV 6 years ago
AlexV
WarturtleGavinAurionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
WarturtleGavinAurionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by knucklepuk 6 years ago
knucklepuk
WarturtleGavinAurionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
WarturtleGavinAurionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03