The TSA needs to be abolished.

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.