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

I note that she did not ask me any questions for crossfire. Mine are listed at the end. First, some brief rebuttals.1. ProfilingFirst my opponent attempts to disprove my specific-example attack by claiming that no other religions use aircraft as weapons. Again, this is ignorant of the fact that it's not being a Muslim that is the cause of this. Indeed it is anti-Islamic to hijack aircraft. Look at this list: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . Sure, there are a few Muslims in there. Then again, there are about as many Christians. But these numbers are irrelevant. What's relevant is the chance of a person using an aircraft as weapon in future on religious grounds. Practically every religion has scripture that can be cruelly perverted to mean "use aircraft for terrorism. " Is it probable that, sometime in the future, a person calling themselves a "Christian" will hijack a plane? Yes. My opponent's model may catch the Muslims (at least those without ridiculously good poker faces), but they won't catch the Christian ones, or any other religion for that matter. Second she claims she does not do polarising hate speech. I agree. That's not what the right wing Zionists, looking for any excuse to vindicate the Muslim masses to legitimise a Zionist-controlled middle-east, will think about the widespread adoption of this model. Racial profiling gives an excuse for general bigotry. If my employer was to discriminate on my religion, gender, sexuality or anything else that doesn't actually have an impact on my resolve to work, they'd be sued for hate speech generally. This is because we recognise that hate speech in the workplace gives rise to hate speech in wider society. In the same way, the fact I am a Muslim or any other religion does not in and of itself affect my resolve to terrorise - but that's not what people will think if the government starts screening all Muslims as terrorists and lets the others board the plane virtually unchecked. Third she claims the 1972 attack was done by Muslim terrorists. The covert counter-attack was done by . .. who? She totally ignored my point about being unable to actually tell what religion people are, given that we have freedom of religion. That rebuttal actually makes all of the above un-necessary, so I'd quite like a response (though I suspect it will be too little, too late).2. MotionMy 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? The motion is basically calling for one side to defend "Israeli-style behavioural profiling. " It does not state that side needs to defend Israeli agents, only the Israeli system of profiling, whether that is carried out by the TSA, the army, the CIA, Chuck Norris, the Indian police or anyone else. The other side needs to defend "the American Tech-Based System. " It does not say they need to defend the TSA, only that they have to defend the system used by the TSA against the system used by Israeli agents. When my opponent claims the agents are the system she is clearly being silly. The guys at the airport didn't invent that scanner or those behavioural techniques moments before you arrived. They were taught the system from the people who developed it. It might be objected (although my opponent has not made this attack clearly, I sort of get this from her last sentence) that the TRAINING of the agents is part of the system, for agents use their training in their operations. In that case, she is presupposing a typical American airport. The trouble with this is that other countries exist, this debate isn't limited in scope to America, and dozens of countries use the American system perfectly successfully with highly-qualified staff. Therefore there isn't any problem with the training itself. That one implementation of that training is flawed has no effect on the American tech-based system at all, and especially not when used as a comparison with the Israeli system. It's like arguing against climate change while refusing to look at any temperature measurements outside of the Sahara Desert - My opponent argues against the American system by assuming only America has a tech-based system.3. Feelings vs. SafetyAs to my example, heck, it's one of only two terrorist attacks to have ever happened in our history (the other was a maritime one). It was reported in detail on all New Zealand media. Here's the guardian's take: . http://www.guardian.co.uk...If the Israeli system was not based on feelings, they would not do racial profiling. No individual race has ever hijacked a plane in Israel. It's just that Raul Sela and his cronies think the Arabs might be up to something, so they profile them just in case. That's a feeling he holds against the Arabs. The same goes for religious profiling or any other form of profiling, because no Israeli plane has ever been hijacked by anybody. Raul Sela in your quote spoke of behavioural profiling, and if that was all that happened then I would have to concede this point. But racial, ethnic, religious and other profiling crosses the line. My opponent ignores two of my points that had nothing to do with my example. The first is that "pandering to feelings" is a ridiculous way to describe impartiality. The second is that intention cannot be accurately verified 100%, no matter how well-trained you are. You can always work on that poker face, swipe that frequent flier number or script your story about your fear of flying. She also didn't respond to my analysis that the American model is NOT based on feelings.4. My brilliant logic4a. Inbound flightYes, Israeli agents will monitor you as you get on the flight - but it is my understanding that checked luggage is still run through the airport scanners, terminal access is restricted for those who haven't gone through airport (as opposed to Israeli) security. The two models are not mutually exclusive. All I need to prove is that you are subjected to the American model. Whether or not you are also subjected to the Israeli model is irrelevant.4d. Israeli, outboundIt can't be inbound, and it can't be a foreigner going outbound because otherwise they would have been stopped going inbound. One is either a foreigner or an Israeli, therefore this must be true.4e. Restrictions on bomb salesMy evidence for this is numerous books written by Palestinians who tried and ran away. Omar Nasiri gives a really vivid account, Morgan Spurlock interviewed one (in the book, not the film), and every now and then one is cited (although not quoted, because of fear of negative repercussions) on Al Jazeera. Even if this were not true, however, that doesn't void my point. My logic does not stop there. Even if you reject 4e, that's still only Israeli nationals. I told you why it's not surprising Israeli nationals don't bomb their country - they have arduous military service. They have little domestic unrest. Other countries of the same size haven't had one either. My opponent does nothing to exclude these clear alternative explanations. I'm rather puzzled as to why she claims there is only been one, without any further analysis.5. Crossfirea) Can you provide reasoning for why only Muslims will use aircraft as weapons? b) Can you do the same for Arabs? c) How do you account for the large number of non-Arab, non-Muslim aircraft hijackings? d) Why isn't your model based on stereotypes, given that it is based entirely on past events? 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? f) Why did you ignore so many of my points? g) How is your model objective? Looking forward to the final round!