After allowing a chain of thoughts to percolate, I have arrived at a difference of opinion that I would like to investigate further. In the light of the times in which we live, there is a clash about deliberately scrutinizing certain groups at airport security screening checkpoints more than others. As one person recently said on television, "It is time to stop worrying about political correctness and start concerning ourselves with safety." This is for a refutation speech, so how could I both find out more about his position and do research that casts doubt on his assertions? How can I disagree without being disagreeable?
Just recently, U.S. security checks have tightened for people coming from any of 14 countries. These countries were selected on the basis of previous terrorists originating in those countries. The article I read is from CBS, but there were other sources that I consider less reliable that also reported this information.
I suggest you Google airport security checks, 14 countries, and other terms. Find out for yourself what the arguments on both sides are.
When you debate, you "agree to disagree." I see logic on both sides of this argument, but only one side can prevail in actual practice. You can also see if these tighter security checks affect only those with foreign passports or also those with U.S. passports.
Good luck!
I am wondering what exactly you are refuting.
BP: That it is not only acceptable but also necessary to target certain types of people to stop bombings and such. I think that there must be other things that one could do that do not involving singling out particular groups for scrutiny as they travel.
Yes, you are right. Behaviour indicators do exist, and offer clues. THe question is, and neither you nor I can answer, is of off the things used to prescreen, which are more effective. I suspect only the Israelis have enough data to know that, US standards have not caught enough terrorists boarding airlines to have sufficient data to coorelate with their screening rubrics. Until then, I suspect no one will be able to document any system better, however offensive some of these are to some cultural groups.
So I suspect your refutation is going to be based on theoretical concepts, and near zero data, and you will be refuting on your "thinking" and speculation ("must be other things that one could do"). That basis is not much better than the shotgun heuristic methods being used, in my opinion.
To investigate the position and cast doubt on the assertions made by the individual you mentioned, it is crucial to approach your research with an open mind and gather credible information from various sources. Here's a step-by-step guide on how you can conduct research and respectfully present your disagreement:
1. Understand the position: Begin by understanding the perspective of the person you mentioned. Watch or read the full context of their statement to grasp the nuances of their view on security vs. political correctness.
2. Define your position: Determine your stance on the topic, taking into account both safety concerns and potential issues with uneven scrutiny. Ensure you have a clear understanding of your own argument.
3. Literature review: Start your research by reading scholarly articles, research papers, and news reports to gain insights into airport security practices and policies. Look for reputable sources that present different perspectives.
4. Consider counterarguments: While exploring the literature, pay attention to any counterarguments or different viewpoints that may provide evidence in favor of the position you are trying to refute.
5. Evaluate evidence: Analyze the evidence you've gathered and critically assess its credibility, accuracy, and consistency. Consider the biases, expertise, methodology, and reliability of your sources.
6. Structure your refutation speech: Organize your arguments logically, addressing each main point separately. Present your counterarguments and evidence succinctly and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language.
7. Acknowledge valid points: In the spirit of fair and respectful discourse, acknowledge any valid concerns or arguments made by the opposing viewpoint. This shows that you have considered different perspectives and adds credibility to your own position.
8. Solidify your argument with evidence: Use the evidence you found during your research to support your claims and cast doubt on the assertions made by the person you are refuting. Clearly explain why you find their arguments lacking or flawed.
9. Anticipate counterarguments: Consider potential counterarguments to your own position and be prepared to address them. This demonstrates thorough research and prepares you to respond respectfully during any question and answer session.
10. Present respectfully: In your refutation speech, maintain a calm and respectful tone. Focus on the ideas being discussed rather than attacking the person themselves. Use language that is diplomatic and constructive.
Remember, the goal is to engage in a respectful exchange of ideas and foster meaningful dialogue. Approach the disagreement with an open mind and remain focused on the topic at hand.