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

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS Ymersi

Reward Points:21
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.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
1 point

After this argument, I hope you believe that the TSA should not be permitted to use ‘advanced imaging technology’ to peer under passengers’ clothing in search of dangerous items.

1 point
1 point

You claim it being effective, but how good are they actually? They were ony really to find the bulk of the expolsivness onl 56% of the time.

According to James, these scanners do not detect low-density items very well/ A British defense-research firm reportedly found that full-body scanners can be unreliable in detecting "low-density" materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids, which is what the 2009 Christmas "underwear bomber" had stuffed in his briefs. While a hazy outline is often revealed for such items, the blurriness can often prevent the detection of such items, particularly when hundreds of thousands of passengers are being screened daily. airport-scanner-scam

1 point

As disputed before, our privacy rights need not be sacrificed for security. As Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said on January 9th, 2010: "We don't need to look at naked 8-year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes. Are we really going to subject 2 million people per day to that? I think it's a false argument to say we have to give up all of our personal privacy in order to have security." 1full-body-scanners-privacy-advocates-virtual-strip-search

0 points

Is your source reliable? Debatepedia shows both sides of the argument, and the information is from the opinions of other people which can be easily edited.

1 point

According to Jeffrey Leib, "TSA pat-downs have evolved into more of a light massage, with screeners running their hands up and down the arms, torsos and legs of those passengers selected for the extra screening procedure." You call this a "better" and "secure" alternative?

1 point

We have already disputed this argument. Please read the above disputes.

2 points

However all of these alternatives still invade our privacy and violate the 4th amendment. How about coming up with an alternative to whole body imaging, such as the Puffer and the Gaurdian.

2 points

However, whether it is a low level of radiation, that small amount is still impacting travellers. How about the pilots that use this harmful machine each and every day? According to Michael Grabell, that small amount could risk lives of getting cancer.

2 points

The second point that we want to argue is the cancer risk of the TSA body scanners. According to MSNBC , a report said that the probability that a full body scan will induce cancer is comparable to the probability of dying because of a plane being blown up. of-cancer-from.html&sa;=D&sntz;=1&usg;=AFQjCNHqtUDBrkat3V8DoBHMB4Sz azwA

Ymersi 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