The TSA needs to be abolished.

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...