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

I appreciate her attempt at brevity. I shall be very breif also.1. ProfilingGreat, so Muslims are not the only religious group that targets planes. I wonder then what "very specific belief system" IS the only religious group that my opponent believes targets planes. The truth is hijackers come from all manner of religious backgrounds. She also notes that Arabs are not the "very specific subset of the population" who commit terrorism. In that case, I wonder who are? The truth is that terrorists can come from any part of the population, and we need to be vigilant against them all. She also states that it isn't just ethnic profiling, but also behavioural. That doesn't negate my attack on ethnic profiling. It seems a sorry excuse to try to weasel her way out of this argument. It also doesn't negate my attack on the fact you can't ethnically or religiously profile like the Israeli authorities claim to be able to. It doesn't matter that this is not given more weight, what matters is that these irrelevant criteria are given any weight. My opponent notes she did not mention the effect on the motivation of racist groups. That's the problem. I brought it up as rebuttal, and she explains at great length that she did not answer it. Thanks. Then she states she did not mention only specific groups (I used the example of Muslims) are targeted. Perhaps she should re-read round one. Finally, she says Moussad are not terrorists. In that case, Black September must be warriors. Black September openly attacked, with the intention of causing harm as opposed to fear. Moussad did the very opposite. But we digress. I don't think my opponent is a racist, or a bigot, or anything else. I'm sure she has the best of intentions for global aviation security, and I don't mean to paint her as anything personally. When I attack the system she advocates, it should not be taken to be a personal attack. I am showing how her system is racist and encourages bigotry, that is all.2. MotionHere's what the motion isn't, but my opponent wants it to be: "That Israeli airport security is superior to airport security in the United States. " I recommend she start another debate with that motion, her case would be brilliant for it. However, the motion states that we are debating the systems used by airports to catch terrorists. One is in the style of Israel, and uses the techniques of behavioural and ethnic profiling. One is in the style of America, and uses the technology that has been developed. These techniques and technologies make up systems for identifying and catching terrorists. In other words, if I admit airport security staff are better in Israel, I do not admit the technique of behavioural and ethnic profiling is superior to technology. Therefore I do not concede the debate. I reminded her of this back in our acceptance round3. Feelings vs. SafetyOh, would you look at that. Despite her attempt at brevity she missed out one of my major points entirely. Looks like I'll have to win this one.4. Brilliant (! !! ) logicMy opponent states Israel has much civil unrest, and claims she won't rebut me because I am not aware, informed and qualified. Imagine if that was my rebuttal to all of her points (lol). I can see this is going to diverge into an argument over what exactly is Israeli territory. Certainly there is unrest, if you count Palestinian resistance to the demolition of their homes as unrest. However, these people are not citizens of the country. Occasionally they are Arabs who have crossed the border from Syria or Lebanon, and sometimes they are Palestinians from Gaza or another Israeli-controlled area who see suicide bombing as their only option. Take the amount of unrest by citizens of Israel (which is what "civil unrest" means) and you'll see it's actually one of the lowest in the world. She did not respond to all the rest of my logic, based upon her false impression of what civil unrest is.5. Answers to crossfireMy opponent states that terrorism changes over time. In that case, how can she claim to predict who the next group to do terrorism with aircraft will be? It may well not be the same people. Second, if you look at the link I provided last round, several recent notable hijackings were carried out by non-Muslims. Therefore this whole argument is based on a lie. She states that building a profile based on past events is not stereotyping. Alright, then what is? Stereotyping means using past events to determine present attitudes towards people. Just because RAND Corporation says otherwise does not make it true. She states that the agents administer the system. Administering a system and being a system are two very, very different things. I'm completely confused as to what my opponent is actually arguing for. Next she claims I am baiting her, attacking her personal beliefs and mindset, and accusing her of racism, and therefore she cannot respond to all my points. First, by my count she had about 700 characters left. Surely she could have answered a few more of my points. Secondly, none of my points attacked her person, beliefs, or personality. I am only attacking her argument. That's not baiting her, that's called rebuttal. It tends to happen in debating. Finally she notes that the criteria Israel uses are objective. She does not tell us, however, how the establishment of the criteria (which is what I've actually been arguing against all this time) is objective. Yet another reason why she cannot win the debate.