Return to CreateDebate.comnocompromise • Join this debate community

8th grade Amendment debates



Welcome to 8th grade Amendment debates!

8th grade Amendment debates is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Thais27

Reward Points:18
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
93%
Arguments:24
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
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.

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.

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.

2 points

Where is your evidence? Facts? You have no proof of this being true.

1 point

The airport and TSA are not stupid. Where do you get your info? They would never put a pervert behind the screen. What ? Are they going to be aroused by your cartoon/ ghost-like body? Plus this would not even satisfy anybody sexually because as said before, most images are cartoons, and those who aren't are ghost-like. The eprson behind the screen would obviously be a professional officer or such, and as images cannot be stored, he/she owuld only be abel to see for a couple seconds.

1 point

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

As time goes on, scanners wil improve and evolve and be able to catch every little thing. Although right this second, they may not be able to catch every single thing, they can at least catch most things and give a higher chance of security.

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!

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!

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/

Thais27 has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here