Return to CreateDebate.comnocompromise • Join this debate community

8th grade Amendment debates


Debate Info

81
45
Yes it should be allowed No, it should not
Debate Score:126
Arguments:89
Total Votes:181
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes it should be allowed (52)
 
 No, it should not (35)

Debate Creator

Chaddwick(126) pic



8B: 4th Amendment Unlawful Search and Seizures

 Question:  “Should the TSA be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items?”

Yes it should be allowed

Side Score: 81
VS.

No, it should not

Side Score: 45
3 points

Majority of Americans voted yes:

Polls:

Majority travellers are willing to go through the scanners.

81% of Americans support the use of advanced imaging technology at airports nationwide (cbsnews.com)

78% of air travelers approve of U.S. airports' using advanced imaging technology on airline passengers

(gallup.com)

79% of travelers said they are comfortable with U.S. airports using advanced imaging technology

(tripadvisor.com)

Over 81% of travelers said they do not have concerns about the use of advanced imaging technology at checkpoints

(travelagentcentral.com)

73.9% of travelers said they would be willing to undergo a body scan before getting on a plane

(online.wsj.com)

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
1 point

You may say that majority of people agree with the scanner, but are you saying that the rest of the people's opinion that disagree do not matter? Many people claim that the scanning is an invasion of privacy.

Side: No, it should not
2 points

Hello, today we are going to speak to you about the right of having the TSA permitted to using ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items.

The opponents might say “What about privacy?” “Can’t too much radiation cause cancer?” Privacy? Really?

We can counterclaim this by saying safety is a lot more important than privacy. Would you rather be stubborn and say no, go onto a plane and explode, or stand in a scanner for less than 5 seconds to be sure that no weapons or bombs of any kind is able to enter a plane full of people.

Now for radiation, pilots have gone through the scanners so many more times than any normal passenger, and none of them have cancer because the radiation power is so low. After our argument, we hope that you see that the side we stand for is the only side and it is the correct one.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
2 points

You say that many pilots have gone through the scanners and none of them have cancer. Please give us names names of pilots that do not have cancer.

Side: No, it should not
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
0 points

What is your source saying that NO pilots have cancer? This is not true, 36.9% of people have cancer. seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Side: No, it should not
Aimun(15) Disputed
1 point

You may argue that radiation from the machines can cause health risks and problems, but I say that radiation is so minimal that it won’t have any affect. Radiation experts and medical physicists say that the scanners used in airports produce such low levels of radiation that they have no potential real health risks. Kelly Classic, a health physicist, said "The amount of radiation is almost insignificant … There are so many common things we're exposed to that produce radiation. This [an airport scan] is a pretty minor piece of that." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted the assessment that the radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation a person is exposed to from two minutes of flying at cruising altitude. A passenger would need more than 1,000 scans in a year to reach the dose equal to one normal chest X-ray. The Department’s August report said the doses of the radiation given to a person in the scanner are below those laid out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Even if a person had 46 scans a day for every single day for a year, it would still be only 1/4 of the total amount of radiation that the ANSI recommends not be exceeded in a given year.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
2 points

As security is the main reason full body scanners should be allowed, I mean would you rather stand in a machine for 2 seconds

http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/faq.aspx#anc_j

and have a safe flight, or refuse and have weapons be brought onto a plane filled with people and millions of death. Our second point would be radiation. Although you might argue that the scanner can cause cancer because of the radiation, but the machines emit fewer than 10 micrograms of radiation (which is roughly one-thousandth of the exposure of a chest x-ray). The Food and Drug Administration says that the risk of cancer is one in 400 million, citing the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

Up to 5 million micrograms of annual exposure is considered safe; 3 or 10 micrograms is still a very small amount. http://www.healthcentral.com/prostate/c/ 215658/160107/healthcentral-explainer/

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

I completely agree with you, because as well as this, scanners was to speed passengers through checkpoints at busy airports. The scanner takes 2 seconds and it doesn’t show your body with details, because it is animated. It is a better option. And infants and young children under 140cms will not be selected to undergo a body scan.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
0 points

Radiation can cause some diseases and mutations. The more you keep going through the machines the more radiation you will get which will cause you to get the mutations.

Side: No, it should not
Aimun(15) Disputed
1 point

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration put the risk of a fatal cancer from the machines at one in 400 million. The U.K. Health Protection Agency has put it at one in 166 million. Some experts say such estimates of population risk create a distorted picture of the danger because humans are constantly exposed to background radiation and already accept risks that increase exposure, such as flying on a plane at cruising altitude. In the authoritative study on the health risks of low levels of radiation, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the risk of cancer increases with radiation exposure and that there is no level of radiation at which the risk is zero.

http://www.propublica.org/article/coffee-tea-or-cancer-americans-oppose-x- ray-body-scanners

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Sadhika(4) Disputed
1 point

The health risks from the radiation the imaging equipment uses are generally very low, and usually outweighed by the benefits of getting the right diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Body scanners are at use in many airports across the UK and abroad. There are two types of scanner in use in the UK. One type uses millimetre radio waves that can “see” through clothing. The other type uses a very low dose of ionising radiation. Neither type has been shown to pose a risk to people’s health.

The first type of scanner uses radio waves, which are a form of non-ionising radiation that does not cause health effects at the low doses given off by airport scanners.

The second type uses ionising radiation, which in high doses can be harmful. But the levels used in airport scanners are about 100,000 times lower than what an average UK person would be exposed to each year. This dose is so low that it makes no noticeable difference to a person’s risk of cancer.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
2 points

You may argue that radiation from the machines can cause health risks and problems, but I say that radiation is so minimal that it won’t have any affect. Radiation experts and medical physicists say that the scanners used in airports produce such low levels of radiation that they have no potential real health risks. Kelly Classic, a health physicist, said "The amount of radiation is almost insignificant … There are so many common things we're exposed to that produce radiation. This [an airport scan] is a pretty minor piece of that." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted the assessment that the radiation from one scan is equivalent to the radiation a person is exposed to from two minutes of flying at cruising altitude. A passenger would need more than 1,000 scans in a year to reach the dose equal to one normal chest X-ray. The Department’s August report said the doses of the radiation given to a person in the scanner are below those laid out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Even if a person had 46 scans a day for every single day for a year, it would still be only 1/4 of the total amount of radiation that the ANSI recommends not be exceeded in a given year.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/23614

Side: Yes it should be allowed
2 points

As your main and only point is privacy, you might say that full body scanners are an invasion of privacy and that they should have pat downs instead or metal detectors but those are an even bigger invasion of privacy. In pat downs they feel every part of your body, and they do this with medal detectors too. Sarah also said they should have dog searches. 1) dogs cant detect anythign except for drugs, 2) this is a huge invasion of privacy as an animal is sniffing your body. Also Yumna said full body scanners would not catch everything and people could sneak things through, but medal detectors can only detect MEDAL. What if your carrying a bomb or dynamite or any kind of weapon that is not made of medal? Then what? The plain explodes, and you die.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

Safety First!!! A human life is priceless, safety wins over privacy!!

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
2 points

You ponit that a human life is priceless is a valid point. Although safety does not win over privacy. Benjamin Franklin stated that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
1 point

I completely disagree with you, safety DOES win over privacy. Safety will always come first, no matter what! The pictures (which are animated and do not show and specific body parts) do not save in a server they delete forever. According to a 2010 CBS poll, four out of five Americans support the use of Advanced Imaging Technology at airports nationwide.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
ksikora8B(9) Disputed
-1 points

All of the american amendments are based about personal freedom and liberty. Why should this be an exception to your own rights!?

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
2 points

So are you saying that we should have liberty and then be unsure of your safety? That we should not have these scanners and have a very high chance of getting injured or even killed?

Side: Yes it should be allowed
OliverNemeth(3) Disputed
1 point

Personal Freedoms the TSAs AIT does not impact personal freedoms, you guys agreed to buy the ticket which states that you are agreeing to go through these machines, if you dont want to do that take a boat!!!Relating back to the 4th amendment, it states that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants. TSA’s AIT is not an unreasonable search. its for safety. Also they don’t have a warrant but when you buy the ticket you are agreeing to go through security, which is where you are randomly chosen to go through the AIT. So TSA’s AIT is not unreasonable and you agree to it if you are planning to fly.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

There should be this type of security so nothing can happen on 9/11. A few planes were hijacked by suicide terrorists in the tragic event of 9/11. This was because of the lack of security at airports. After that event, security tightened everywhere. This was to make sure that it didn’t happen again.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
2 points

After 9/11 in 2009 the "Christmas Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got through the airport with all the checks and got on to the plane. He got through by putting the bomb in his down under and covering it by plastic that covered the explosives on the scanner.

checkshttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/491912/Underwear-bomb-plot-failed-because-bomber-wore-pants-for-two-weeks

Side: No, it should not
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
1 point

yes this is a valid point but safety is as important as liberty so to make all passengers happy they should create a system such as dog searches and metal detectors to replace the personally invasive machines

Side: No, it should not
Aimun(15) Disputed
1 point

(2013) TSA says that the scanners have revealed more than 60 "artfully concealed" illegal or prohibited items in the past year. No explosives have been detected by the machines to this day, but their ability to spot even small concealed objects demonstrates their effectiveness as a security tool, officials said. "It is absolutely a tremendous improvement of what we can detect at the checkpoints," TSA Acting Administrator Gale Rossides said this week. "It is an excellent piece of technology that will significantly improve our detection capabilities." But to illustrate the machines' effectiveness, Rossides showed a packet of white powder smaller than a tea bag, saying it was identical to a concealed bag detected by an imager. She also said that the body imagers are especially useful because they can expose contraband on parts of the body that aren't fully explored in pat-downs, such as private parts.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/18/travel/tsa-body-scanners/index.html#

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/04/01/airport.body.scanners/

https://drive.google.com/a/gemsdaa.net/file/d/0B4hrrItwXm4bTWtpaGxjUDhteEE/view

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Aimun(15) Disputed
1 point

What if people don't want dogs to sniff and search them? What if the dog goes and bites someone?

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Thais27(18) Disputed
1 point

Dog searches???? Your only point is privacy, but how are dog searches respecting privacy? Who wants dogs sniffing every part of their body ? Thats more of an invasion! So are pat-downs, pat downs are when you feel the passengers body, all around, to make sure she/he is not carrying anything. Full body scans are not as invasive, you stand fully dressed in a scanner. Your body is not touched in any way, or viewed with detail.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Aimun(15) Disputed
0 points

As we've already said, the machines are not invasive. The scanner is not graphic. In fact, it’s generic with almost no detail. When metal or illegal products are detected, the area turns yellow on the screen to indicate where it’s located. The body scanner images are not archived or stored if this happens. If the person has nothing illegal or dangerous on them, the screen gives the ‘OK’ without any images. Before the TSA modified the machines, they used to have detailed images of the passengers body. It’s true that people disagreed with this saying that it was a violation of the fourth amendment. After this, the TSA made the picture look the same whether you’re a girl or boy, young or old, short or tall, it all came out the same.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

I can already tell you guys are losing because you are afraid to fight against our disputes, scaredy cats!!!

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

According to this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7wRr9DKZbs

74% of Americans are in favor of the scanner. As well as this, the radiation is equivalent to ⅓ of the power in a tooth x-ray. That is extremely little especially for people who travel rarely.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

It does not go against the 4th amendment because In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

In conclusion, safety always wins over privacy. You guys might say that they can get through them so they should switch it with a search dog or a metal detector, but if you want to do that be ready for horrible things to happen. This is because with a dog, it can only sniff drugs and with a metal detector it only detects metal so you can sneak plastic knives or drugs.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

In conclusion, safety always wins over privacy, and the radiation is extremely little in the full body scanner. The full body scanner is completely effective and should be kept in airports to keep everyone safe. You did say privacy was important, but safety always comes first. We hope you have been convinced that the body scanners should stay in airports.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

In concusion, we had 3 main points. Safety, radiation, and privacy. Safety beats anything. What if someone said no to a full body scanner because they thought it invaded privacy, then walked into a plane and brought a weapon/ammunition with them. Then a whole plain filled with humna lives would explode and everyone would die. Also, the oponent might have argued that the scanners could cause cancer from the radiation, but they do not. As said in http://www.healthcentral.com/prostate/c/ 215658/160107/healthcentral-explainer/

the machines emit fewer than 10 micrograms of radiation (which is roughly one-thousandth of the exposure of a chest x-ray). The Food and Drug Administration says that the risk of cancer is one in 400 million, citing the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Up to 5 million micrograms of annual exposure is considered safe; 3 or 10 micrograms is still a very small amount. Our last point was privcay, as our oponents suggested pat downs and metal detectors, they are even more nvasive as they feel yoru bdoy. You are fully dressed during scanners and the images are ghsot like or catroon. Plu sonly one person is behind the screen. We hoped you have convinced you to stand on our side. Thank you.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

In conclusion, the safety of the public is more important than privacy. Even though the TSA has changed the technology to less invasive animated, non graphic images, some people might have thought that it's still invasion. We hope you are convinced.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
2 points

Body scanners are a fraud and a waste of money. They cost over $150,000 and do not always catch the explosive.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

$150,000 for a piece of metal that is not 100% accurate. You could save lives in Africa instead of buying though's

Side: No, it should not
2 points

The backscatter machines are ineffective because they cannot detect explosives in body cavities or covered by special plastic's like the "Christmas Underwear Bomber" has. You can sneak large quantities of explosives through the machine, using different techniques.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

There is plastic (1.5 cm) that can cover weapons and drugs and mask them from the scanner. This proves that in fact, this scanner doesn’t stop all terrorists and drug dealers from continuing their illegal acts.

A passenger can tape a gun to there leg (the outside of it), right above there knee. That means that the black that shows up from the gun blends in with its background.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab commited something called the underwear bomber.Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got through the airport with all the checks while having a bomb in his underwear. He went all the way through to the airplane but the bomb groin. This event happened on 2009 on Christmas Day. He was on a plane from Amsterdam to Detroit and it was degraded and caused a fire. This means they scanner is not accurate.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/491912/Underwear-bomb-plot-failed-because-bomber-wore-pants-for-two-weeks

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Even Benjamin Frankiln, a role model to many, agrees that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” This means we should all follow these regulations and have metal detectors which give every human some privacy. The world already rips away a lot of privacy from humans already with the internet.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Researchers from U.C. San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University say that anyone with knowledge of the scanners can sneak a weapon through the scanners. This means that professional researchers believe that the scanners have no use as the weapons can be sneaked.

Side: No, it should not
1 point

When you buy a ticket for a flight, it does not state on the ticket that you are excepting the fact that people will take nudes of you!! It is just wrong

Side: No, it should not
1 point

Therefore we think that the advanced imaging technology machines are not a good addition to our airports and we think that there should be a drug-melling dog and metal detectors at every check-in to keep safe and be 100% sure of our safety.

Side: No, it should not
0 points

The machines will just cause economic problems in America as each body scanner costs over $150,000. It will create a problem as they will run out of money to use for valuable things.

Side: No, it should not
Thais27(18) Disputed
1 point

Excuse me? Are you saying this item is not valuable? Without full body scanners, many weapons could be hid and sneaked into plans, filled with thousands of people! Then this plane filled with human beings, would crash or explode and thousands of lives would be taken away. Pretty valuable to me!

Side: Yes it should be allowed
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
1 point

They need to change all body scanners with machines such as metal detectors that have no radiation

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
0 points

While this may be, the price of the human life is incalculable! Safety will always come first!

Side: Yes it should be allowed
OliverNemeth(3) Disputed
0 points

Im pretty sure the USA would have more problems if someone else can get through hijack a plane and bomb more of their buildings, once again there is no price for safety!!!

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Thais27(18) Disputed
0 points

Excuse me? Are you saying this item is not valuable? Without full body scanners, many weapons could be hid and sneaked into plans, filled with thousands of people! Then this plane filled with human beings, would crash or explode and thousands of lives would be taken away. Pretty valuable to me!

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Aimun(15) Disputed
0 points

The scanner prevents huge tragedies like 9/11 where planes were hijacked and many lives were lost. This was done by terrorists from the Saudi terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda. They crashed the planes on purpose. The reason they got through easily in the first place was because of loose security.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
0 points
Side: Yes it should be allowed
0 points

As you guys keep stating that safety is an important factor, liberty and safety should come hand in hand. They should replace the Advanced Imaging Technology with a less invasive searches such as metal detectors along with search dog.

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
0 points

Who would want a dog sniffing them? The only thing the dogs would find is drugs and not weapons!!! Also, when you go through a metal detector, they will only find things that are metal! So you can pass through with drugs, bombs, sharp things that are not metal etc. The dog would be very invasive!! The scanner is less invasive as no one is actually touching you.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
-1 points

In the modern era people are continuously having their privacy invaded everyday using advanced imaging technology. Today we will be talking about risks and effects of using this Full Body Scanner. The opposition might say that safety is more important than liberty although they should go hand in hand. We are going to try and argue that even though giving up a simple freedom like this will lead to giving up major freedoms later on.

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
1 point

Protecting life with scanners is more important than privacy. Outlines can be obscured to protect privacy. They can remove your face from the picture. Minors can be exempted from the full body scanners, but then would a pat-down. Fully-body scanners reveal metallic and nonmetallic items. Full-body scanners are less intrusive than pat-downs. Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
-1 points

I believe that the TSA Advanced Imaging Technology, also known as the full body scanner should not be used in America. There are many reasons for this but one of the main concerns of passengers trying to travel with ease is too much invasion of there naked body.

Side: No, it should not
Thais27(18) Disputed
3 points

Safety always beats privacy. Your argument was they go hand in hand, but they already do: the procedure for a full body scan is explained in this website http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/faq.aspx#anc_i. You are wearing clothes the whole entire time, all you do is step into it and put your arms up. The images are not stored, and the photo that comes up is ghost-like, it is not pornographic, in some countries, the photo is a cartoon.

http://www.propublica.org/special/scanning-the-scanners-a-side-by-side-comparison

Side: Yes it should be allowed
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
1 point

Many passangers flying in America are MUslims and Christians and the act to look under a persons clothes is against there religions stated in these verses in the bible and the Quran.

1 Timothy 2:9 - In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness - that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember. [Quran 7:26]

Side: No, it should not
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
1 point

Yes, you might say that it does not affect a person tremendously, but if they carry on with extreme checks like this this will start to carry on to these kinds of checks everywhere. This will create delay of a regular persons day.

Side: No, it should not
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
1 point

There is no difference from these scans than at looking at pornography

“These aren’t X-rays, they are essentially images of the naked body,” said Sharif Labban, a freshman who will be traveling from Raleigh/Durham International Airport, where the scanners will be in place. “I understand they are for the sake of national defense, but I do not see the distinction from pornography.”

Side: No, it should not
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
0 points

As you state that safety is an important factor, although liberty and safety should come hand in hand. They should replace the Advanced Imaging Technology with a less invasive searches such as metal detectors along with search dog.

Side: No, it should not
Aimun(15) Disputed
3 points

It, in fact, doesn’t violate the right to privacy because it’s for safety reasons. These searches and scans will keep the passengers safe. It will also keep dangerous items out of the plane for people to have a safe trip. It can detect drugs as small as teabags. If the passengers are so worried about strangers seeing their naked body, then they should know that the scan image is not graphic. In fact, it’s generic with almost no detail. When metal or illegal products are detected, the area turns yellow on the screen to indicate where it’s located. The body scanner images are not archived or stored if this happens. If the person has nothing illegal or dangerous on them, the screen gives the ‘OK’ without any images. Before the TSA modified the machines, they used to have detailed images of the passengers body. It’s true that people disagreed with this saying that it was a violation of the fourth amendment. After this, the TSA made the picture look the same whether you’re a girl or boy, young or old, short or tall, it all came out the same.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
0 points

I disagree as you state that "it will also keep dangerous items out of the plane for people to have a safe trip." because the machine does not always detect dangerous items that the person is carrying. Researchers from U.C. San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University say that anyone with knowledge of the scanners can sneak a weapon through the scanners. Which therefore means that more people can sneak dangerous items on to the aircraft because they will be able to get through the scanners.

Side: No, it should not
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
0 points

The people deserve the right to know who is behind the screen looking at your "nudes". These people might be perverts that have nothing to do with wanting to find weapons, just to see somebodies naked bodies.

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
2 points

This is incorrect, the images on the screen would be an animated picture. They would not see a naked body, as well as this, women look at women and men would look at men. All modern body scanners also cover the face of the person.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
sarahmadani(17) Disputed
1 point

They show the outlines of the humans gentals- http://www.jaunted.com/tag/Full-Body%20Scanners

This makes the traveler uncomfortable

Side: No, it should not
-1 points

You might think that these scanner catch all the criminals but in fact there is a way to cross this machine with a weapon or drug if it is concealed correctly. You can actually use a specific type of plastic that will shield the weapon from the rays. See for yourself!

Side: No, it should not
-2 points
Thais27(18) Disputed
2 points

When you buy your ticket, you're agreeing to the full body scan. Plus, this does not invade privacy, you are fully dressed the whole time, and only person sees the image, and images cannot be saved. Images are not a pornographic, they only show a ghostly outline.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
1 point

I completely agree with this. It is true that as you buy the ticket, you are agreeing to the body scan. It is true that once the person sees the image, it deletes and does NOT save on a server.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
0 points

You may say that you are fully dressed the whole time, but it is called a ‘virtual strip search’ so you can see what is under the clothing which many people believe invades their privacy.

Side: No, it should not
Sadhika(4) Disputed
1 point

Privacy may be invaded but it is less intrusive than a pat-down, and is very effective. 74% of American are in favor for the scanner.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
-2 points
Thais27(18) Disputed
3 points

http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/ advanced-imaging-technology

"Since 2009, officers operating advanced imaging technology (AKA “body scanners”) have found all sorts of things on passengers. Some of these items have been smaller items such as a three inch pocket knife hidden on someone’s back, little packets of powder, a syringe full of liquid hidden in someone’s underwear, and other small items either intentionally hidden or forgotten. These finds demonstrate that imaging technology is very effective at detecting anomalies and can help TSA detect evolving threats to keep our skies safe.

"

Side: Yes it should be allowed
OliverNemeth(3) Disputed
2 points

Where do you get your info, from 2008 because that is 2000 and late. All modern body scanners have been upgraded so they are tougher to get by. The background doesn't blend in with the weapon anymore.

Side: Yes it should be allowed
Sadhika(4) Disputed
2 points

Body scanners can find drugs as small as a teabag

Body scanners can prevent planes from being hijacked like 9/11

https://prezi.com/gch-ysjkn06k/airport-scanners-and-the-fourth-amendment/

Side: Yes it should be allowed
YumnaSultan(24) Disputed
0 points

Body scanners do not always prevent planes from being hijacked like 9/11, due to the fact that you can still sneak in weapons through the scanner. An example of snealing a weapon through the scanner is that a passenger can tape a gun to there leg (the outside of it), right above there knee. That means that the black that shows up from the gun blends in with its background. Therefore the weapon will not be detected.

Side: No, it should not
OliverNemeth(3) Disputed
1 point

Is this an opinion because you have no sources which state that that is true.

Side: Yes it should be allowed