Israeli-Style Behavioral Profiling in Airports is Superior to the American Tech-Based System

However, I will state that I did not ignore any of his points—I was constrained by the character limit and my opponent’s multiple arguments. I will attempt to answer more concisely this round, so please excuse what may sound curt—it’s only brevity. ;) R1. Again, I never, at any time, said Muslims were the only group that hijacks airplanes. That would be a false statement. I also never said that Israel only pulls aside Muslims or Arabs for profiling. Granted, these are factors, given weight in the overall process, but there are plenty of other factors. Did the passenger buy a one-way ticket? Is he traveling from a known terrorist-harboring country? Did he buy his ticket at the last minute, and pay cash for it? Is he flying on this one-way, cash-paid ticket with no luggage? Is he showing signs of fear, nervousness, or even overly heightened awareness? These things are all part of the process, and they are not dependent on just race or perceived religion. Also, only between 2 and 5% of all passengers are selected for advanced screening. [1] My opponent brings up “right wing Zionists, looking for any excuse to vindicate the Muslim masses to legitimise a Zionist-controlled middle-east. ” No one on this side of the debate fence has even mentioned anything about this, nor have I engaged in hate speech on any level. Con pretends that I am advocating “screening all Muslims as terrorists and [letting] the others board the plane virtually unchecked. ” At what point did I say that? My argument has always been, and will remain, that the Israeli personal behavior-based security system—which does employ a certain amount of “profiling” in its application among other factors—is superior to a blind TSA system. That is all. Con has attempted from the first round to paint me as a bigot, a racist, a hater of Muslims. None of these are true, and I categorically reject any argument he has that uses his erroneous perceptions of me as its basis. Side point: The 1972 Munich attack was done by Muslims. That is not something I “claim,” that is established, historical fact. And yes, the resulting counter-attack was done by the Israeli Mossad, who contrary to Hollywood’s version, were not monsters. However, this is another debate for another time. Con says that I “totally ignored [his] point about being unable to actually tell what religion people are. ” No, I didn’t. However, it’s just another manifestation of Con using his erroneous perception of my argument as the basis for his own. It’s not about telling what religion people are. It’s about using all the behavioral—and yes, ethnic and religious when it’s obvious and/or applicable, and in EQUAL parts with every OTHER factor--to determine a passenger's possible intent. R2: Motion Con states that “My opponent explains at great length how the American transportation security administration isn't as good as Israeli military officials. Having never dealt with either of them, I might as well agree. So what has my opponent proved? ” Well, at the risk of sounding tongue-in-cheek…if Con agrees with my argument that Israel is better, I think the answer is that I just won the debate. ;) Con also states that “My opponent argues against the American system by assuming only America has a tech-based system. ” Wrong again. The title of this debate shows clearly that the American system is what’s under scrutiny here. The fact that other countries use the system or a variant thereof is irrelevant to this discussion. He moves on to expose some of his own bias, first seen in his “right wing Zionist” comments, by referring to Raul Sela “and his cronies. ” Sela did speak of behavioral profiling, and also believes that race and/or religion is a factor that should be considered. These are not given more weight than anything else, they are simply more factors to consider along with everything else. R3: His brilliant (? !) logic I’m not quite sure where Con gets the idea that Israel has little domestic unrest, considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most heated and “un-rested” in the entire world. I’m setting aside this entire argument based on the fact that if Con is not aware or informed on the current Israeli state, he is probably not qualified to speak on whether their airport needs a heightened level of security. 5. Crossfire a) Can you provide reasoning for why only Muslims will use aircraft as weapons? I never stated only Muslims (or Arabs) do this. I only pointed to statistical evidence showing that the numbers are overwhelmingly within the last 15 years, in their favor. b) Can you do the same for Arabs? Re-read Answer #1. c) How do you account for the large number of non-Arab, non-Muslim aircraft hijackings? There have been in the decades gone by, a large number of non-Muslim attacks. However, the political and sociological climate changes over time. At one point, the Red Army Faction, or Beinhof-Maader gang, were two of the most feared terrorist groups in the world. What are they now? Climates change, and groups rise or fall. The challenge with things like airport security—or ANY security—is doing the necessary threat assessment and intelligence to find out what the threat of the month or year is, and handling it accordingly. Asra Nomani, an American Muslim in favor of profiling, explains that “For that time [past decades of non-Muslim terrorism], those were the identities that we needed to assess. Today, the threat has changed, and it is primarily coming from Muslims who embrace al Qaeda’s radical brand of Islam. ” [2] d) Why isn't your model based on stereotypes, given that it is based entirely on past events? Because “an analysis of terrorism cases prosecuted between 2001 and 2009 reveals that identifying race and ethnicity doesn’t mean stereotyping according to country. ” The largest number of terrorists, regardless of religion, held U. S. citizenship, but were connected ethnically to “Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt, with a handful from the Muslim areas of the Balkans. ” [3] e) Are TSA agents "tech-based" (ie androids) or do they use a tech-based system. If not tech based, then how ARE the agents the system? The agents administer the system. The most advanced computer in the world is nothing but a pile of circuitry if an incompetent, uneducated person is operating it. f) Why did you ignore so many of my points? Con is being confrontational, and purposefully baiting me. When one has to spend half the character limit fending off fallacious attacks on their personal beliefs or mindset, or defending accusations about being a racist and a bigot, it tends to make answering multiple, scattered arguments difficult in the stated space. g) How is your model objective? I have already explained this, at length, for three rounds. Israel’s system uses a statistically sound model to find passengers who pose a threat based on a list of criteria that includes everything from how they paid for their ticket to what’s in their luggage to where they’re going and where they’re from. I have no questions for cross-examination. I do not believe them necessary. I look forward to closing arguments. [1] . http://www.slate.com... [2] . http://www.thedailybeast.com... [3] . http://www.rand.org...