I think rather than profiling, airport security should simply use common sense. If someones looks suspicious, they should be checked. If they focus on profiling and look for small details, it might facilitate the job of a terrorist. For example, if statistic show that people with red hats have been known to cause problems, and security gets caught up checking these individuals, then a terrorist not wearing a red hat would easily get through security. Ofcourse this is unlikely to happen.

I think there is only one situation where torture is justified. In most cases it's wrong, but what if we need to get information from a terrorist who plans to bomb four cities? Maybe torture is the only way. It shouldn't be the first option however, and should be applied only in desperate situations. The people arguing against torture and saying it violates human rights need to understand that these individuals chose this path, and if they didn't have the choice and were dragged into it, then they should have no problem testifying. If the military has proof of the involvement of an individual, then pehaps a certain degree of torture could be justified. In the long run, he would be possibly saving lifes.

The idea of public schools serves a purpose that allows students to interact with people with completely different backgrounds. It leads to cultural diffusion and helps students learn about others that are not like them. Allowing students to chose their high school will lead to a sort of segregation where all the “nerds” will be at one school, all the “athletes” in a different one, and so forth. These students will not have the ability to mingle with others that are different from them. The high schools would then turn into a smaller version of colleges, and the high school experience would be lost.

The "majority" that voted for that certain president could've won by a slight margin, leaving almost half of the nation unhappy. And if presidents can't fulfill their promises in two terms, it's probable they won't accomplish them at all.

Throughout human history one of the few, if not only, things that has remained consistent is change. We can date back to the beginning of our very own nation. We did not like the way our goverment was running, so we changed it. Presidents rule for four years when they are elected, with the possibility of being re-elected four more years. Changing Presidents every four or eight years is essential. If a President is going to make an impact on our nation, eight years is more than enough. Allowing more consecutive terms would annoy the people. The president is said to be the biggest celebrity in the world, well just like celebrities, they have their 15 minutes of fame. After those 15 minutes, it's time to move on. We wouldn't want to see Tiger Woods in the spotlight for years and years! It would get annoying. Even if the a president manages to make a great impact, after his two terms, he would probably be ready to step down and let someone else take charge. We rarely consider asking if presidents would even want to rule for more than two terms.

This topic isn't in black and white. It doesn't specify certain situations that could change an individuals opinion. I'm interpreting that this question is refering to ALL illegal immigrants, and basing my argument off of that. There are many prejudism towards illegal immigrants, but it is not fair to judge everyone of them based on others actions.

Forcing developing countries to take care of the environment is a lot like parents forcing their kids to do stuff. Whenever parents force their kids to do chores, kids argue that it isn't fair and complain. They don't realize however, that knowing how to do chores and getting in a habit of taking care of business will serve them well in the long run. By forcing developing countries to take care of their environment we can prevent them from ending up like Mexico City, full of pollution. Society has made the mistake of killing their environment before, developing countries should learn from that. If they fail to realize the effects of an unprotected environment, developed countries should be the big brother and intervene before its too late.

Time machines are not a reality, we can't go back and live through all the horrors that shaped up our country. Even if we could, we most likely woudn't chose to be worked all day for no pay, to get whipped for our mistakes. We were never in a position of humiliation like slaves were. We can't feel what they felt if we didn't live through it, we can only sympathize. If we could pull a slave out of their grave and bring him back to life and ask him to look at our nation now, and decide if it was worth all his sacrifice, what would he say? Its all a matter of perspective.

School limits our creativity in many ways, but doesn't necessarely "kill" creativity. School assignments limit our creativity a lot of the times; teachers want us to stick to the subject and learn what we're supposed to. It makes sense, because we've all seen the one student that decorates the poster a little too much and has absolutely no idea what the assignment was about. As students, we also care a lot about dress code restrictions. We complain about the restrictions saying they don't allow us to express ourselves, but we don't realize that it takes more creativity to stand out in an environment where we have more specific guidelines. In this sense, you could even say the school helps us engender creativity.