The Instigator
LDer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
proberts84
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Is the United States justified in torturing terrorist suspects.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
proberts84
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,494 times Debate No: 7506
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

LDer

Con

I would like to debate this topic LD style (big surprise)
I love this topic.
Please don't accept if your going to forfeit like my last round on this topic.
Thanks everyone!
proberts84

Pro

Thank you for creating this debate.

First, I would like to clarify the subject, which has been written as a question rather than an assertion. I have taken the debate as "The United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects", for which I am taking the pro position. Could we also settle on a definition of torture from the outset. Can we agree that the definition of torture is anything made illegal by the United Nations Convention Against Torture?

Now, with the housekeeping out of the way, let me present the pro case.

I assert that logic does not break down when dealing with emotive or ethical issues. In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so.

There have existed, and will exist in the future, occasions where information is needed from a person in order to save lives. If it is possible to extract this information from this person, it is logical and right that it should be extracted. If the only available method is torture, then so be it.

You can also, of course, view this subject emotively. Take on one side of a balance the sum of the years of despair, loss and loneliness that will be felt by the families and friends of the victims, if the information wasn't extracted. Put on the other side a few hours of pain felt by an individual. In such circumstances it is ethical to torture.

I am asserting that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects under these circumstances. I abhor the idea of the United States ritualising this activity. I also abhor the idea of using torture as anything other than a tool to gain information - it should never be used for retribution or to make the torturers feel superior.

Torture, like (though obviously on a completely different scale) excluding children from schools or abortion, is not nice. In a perfect world it would not be needed. In this imperfect world it unfortunately is.
Debate Round No. 1
LDer

Con

Hi everyone!
Hope to have an awesome debate.

Since my opponent fails to debate in LD style, I am forced to drop the style of the debate and accept this freeform debate.

I accept my opponent's restrictions on the definition of torture. And for those of you guys who are not familiar with the United Nations Convention against Torture, I offer the following extract.
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
- United Nations Convention against Torture (for further reading- http://www.hrweb.org...)

First, to refute all my opponents' arguments.

From my opponent's case: "In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so."
My response: The wording of the argument will always lead to my opponents conclusion, because of the "NECESSARY" that is present in the sentence. Without rewording, this is abusive and should not be considered. My opponent could present this example as: In a situation, where the murder of one person might save the lives of many, it is logical and right to kill the human being. Also, my opponent must provide a warrant for his reasoning.

From my opponent's case: "There have existed, and will exist in the future, occasions where information is needed from a person in order to save lives. If it is possible to extract this information from this person, it is logical and right that it should be extracted. If the only available method is torture, then so be it."

My Response: My opponent focuses on a situation where the suspect is known to have information that is vital for national security. My opponent does not account for the following fact: not everyone the US is holding/torturing is known/proven to have this kind of information or even belong to an extremist group. The United States has rarely produced viable results.
"In all the years you've been doing this (torturing), how often can you say that we've produced truly legitimate intelligence? Once? Twice? Ten times? Give me a statistic; give me a number. Give me a pie chart, I love pie charts. Anything, anything that outweighs the fact that if you torture one person you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies."
-Douglas Freeman in the movie "Rendition" speaking about his experiences as an observer in torture.

I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT TO PRESENT ONE CASE WHERE ADMITTED TORTURE THAT WAS SANCTIONED BY THE US HAS RESULTED IN VIABLE EVIDENCE THAT CAN JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE US!!!

GIVE ME A PIE CHART!!!

From my opponent's case: You can also, of course, view this subject emotively. Take on one side of a balance the sum of the years of despair, loss and loneliness that will be felt by the families and friends of the victims, if the information wasn't extracted. Put on the other side a few hours of pain felt by an individual. In such circumstances it is ethical to torture."
My Response: FEW HOURS??? These victims are put through hopeless years of confinement and deprivation of their human rights. The family might deal with the loss of a loved one. On the other hand, the innocent victims also lose their loved ones on top of their life; will to live, inherent human dignity, etc.

From my opponent's case: "I am asserting that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects under these circumstances. I abhor the idea of the United States ritualizing this activity. I also abhor the idea of using torture as anything other than a tool to gain information - it should never be used for retribution or to make the torturers feel superior."
My response: Accepting torture will eventually ritualize it and will lead to its use as a retributive tool. It is impossible to prevent this from happening.

I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT TO PROVE THAT GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED TORTURE WILL ONLY BE USED FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE US!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to My Case
Torture is unfair, unethical, not to mention unconstitutional. I present the following points as to why the United States is not justified in its actions concerning torture.
1. How do we justify the torture and holding of suspects? Can we ignore "Innocent until proven guilty" when we find it more convenient.
2. Should the US ignore important federal documents and existing signed and ratified documents?
A. The US has an obligation to further human rights in the world as stated in the U.S. Code TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 32 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > � 2304Prev. By torturing innocent victims, we are clearly not promoting human rights.
B. During the Bush Administration, the US chose to re-interpret the Geneva Convention Article 4(A) 2. The re-interpretation allowed us to torture and hold terrorist suspects, because the US didn't have to provide the victims with the prisoner of war status. The US has an obligation to follow contracts it has signed.

When voting on this issue, please consider the following questions:
SHOULD THE US BE ALLOWED TO DENY THE P.O.W. STATUS FROM THE PEOPLE IT HAS CAPTURED? (DO WE NOT CALL IT THE WAR ON TERROR?)
SHOULD THE US BE ALLOWED TO IGNORE FEDERAL DOCUMENTS AND TREATIES IT IS OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW WHEN IT PROVES TO BE MORE CONVENIENT?

Thanks for accepting the debate.
Hope to hear some good rebuttals.
proberts84

Pro

My apologies for dropping the LD style. I must admit getting a little confused as to the formality of the style. I also apologise for my rather long response.

First, to defend my arguments.

I'm afraid my opponent misunderstood my first point: "In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so."

This describes situations where in order to save many, it is necessary to kill one person. You may well chose to do nothing, in which case the many will necessarily die.

You could view an example as a gunman in a school. He is currently shooting students, and you have a gun. You could kill the gunman in order to save many, or you could decide that it is wrong for you to shoot someone and walk away.

My point was that certain things, such as torture and killing people, are in isolation wrong. They can be ethical, however, if the alternative is worse. It is the 'tragic choice', as Nussbaum had it.

My opponent claims I do not account for the fact that "not everyone the US is holding/torturing is known/proven to have this kind of information or...belong to an extremist group".

My response: Of course this is true, but that is out of scope of this debate. The debate is whether the US is justified in torturing terrorist suspects at all, not whether it is justified in torturing _all_ terrorist suspects. The latter is clearly false, as justification emerges from the circumstances of each case.

My opponent then quotes a fictional character from a popular film. I will quote back Richard Posner, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who wrote in The New Republic, September 2002, that "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used - and will be used - to obtain the information....no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility."

My opponent then challenged me to present a case where admitted sanctioned torture by the US has resulted in viable evidence that can justify the torture. This of course I cannot do. The level of secrecy surrounding this sort of investigation will make all information classified in the United States. There was an interesting report submitted to the UN by Israel [1], however. It claimed that the GSS (General Security Services) had foiled 90 planned terrorist attacks (including suicide bombings, car bombings, kidnaps and murders) using torture. An example, from that report:

"A powerful explosive device [was found in the applicant's village] subsequent to the dismantling and interrogation of the terrorist cell to which he belonged. Uncovering this explosive device thwarted an attack...the applicant possessed additional crucial information which he only revealed as a result of their [GSS investigators] interrogation. Revealing this information immediately was essential to safeguarding state and regional security and preventing danger to human life."

My opponent countered my point about the lack of balance between the effect upon the family and friends of the victims and the pain of a few hours of torture, by rejecting the words "few hours". He seemed to claim that it would be necessary to put victims through "hopeless years of confinement and deprivation". This is of course untrue. There are many sources that indicate that torture is effective within hours. In fact, in the circumstances of active terrorist plots I was describing, any longer than a few hours would probably be useless.

I know that in actuality the United States does keep people in the most awful conditions, and make them suffer extremely prolonged anguish, humiliation and near mental extermination. I am not saying this is just - it clearly is not. I am merely saying that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects. A few hours is plenty.

My opponent made the point that accepting torture will necessarily ritualise it and lead to its use as a retributive tool. This needs backing up with references, as it seems pure whimsy. With proper regulation and checks and balances, it can brought under control and made safe from ritualisation.

Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule [2] suggested seven methods of regulation. I'll list four of the more pertinent points, but the interested reader can look up the rest in the paper.

1. Police may use coercive interrogation only when they are reasonably certain that an individual possesses information that could prevent an imminent crime that will kill at least n people, where n is defined in advance.
2. There should be a clear limit on the methods of torture to ensure they are kept moderate. All acts of torture should be video-taped for review by superiors or judicial tribunal.
4. If time permits, warrants must be sought from a judicial figure.
7. All instances of torture must be carefully analysed by either a special commission of experts, judicial panels, or public watchdogs.

My opponent challenged me to prove that Government-sanctioned torture will only be used for the country's interest. I agree with Posner and Vermeule that with the right legal framework, this can be enforced.

------------------

Now for my opponent's case.

1. "Innocent until proven guilty". Those killed by armed police are not afforded the luxury of a fair trial. It is up to the police officer to make an instant decision as to whether they are guilty and whether it is prudent to kill them. This is largely accepted by society. Also, I am not claiming torture should be part of the judicial framework. It should be used for extracting information relating to life-endangering situations, nothing more.

2a. The US does indeed have the obligation to further human rights. However, all human rights need to be balanced with the needs of the wider society - they are not absolutes. There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema or racially insult people. There is a right to privacy, but not, as the European Convention puts it, "when necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" [3].

2b. The Third Geneva Convention was written in 1949, based upon that of 1929. It is based very much on the idea of traditional warfare - that of two formal uniformed sides. It instructs, for example, that prisoners of war must be allowed to wear badges of rank and decorations (a rule ignored by all sides in World War II). There is a strong argument that it does not apply to "terrorists picked up off the battlefield -- who don't represent a nation, revel in killing the innocent, and refuse to wear uniforms" as it was rather over-put by Dan Bartlett. These people are far closer to criminals than enemy combatants.

I disagree with the term "war on terror", just as I disagree with the "war on drugs" or the "war on teenage pregnancy" [no - pregnant teenagers should not be treated as POWs]. People planning to cause terror through explosion or other means should be treated as that, and not as some idea of a formalised army.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

------------------

[1] Israel vs the State of Israel, 38 I.L.M. 1471, 1474. Sept 6, 1999.
[2] "Should Coercive Interrogation be Legal", Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No, 84. March 2005
[3] The European Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 1950, Rome, Article 8
Debate Round No. 2
LDer

Con

First, let's refute my opponent's points.

From my opponent's Case: "I'm afraid my opponent misunderstood my first point: "In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so.""

My response: I fully understand my opponent's argument. The wording with the "NECESSARY" makes any outcome agree with your conclusion; this is abusive.

From my opponent's Case: "My point was that certain things, such as torture and killing people, are in isolation wrong. They can be ethical, however, if the alternative is worse. It is the 'tragic choice', as Nussbaum had it."

My Response: WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? How can we universally justify agree on which is worse when everyone is going to have a different opinion?

From my opponent's Case: "Of course this is true, but that is out of scope of this debate. The debate is whether the US is justified in torturing terrorist suspects at all, not whether it is justified in torturing _all_ terrorist suspects. The latter is clearly false, as justification emerges from the circumstances of each case."

My response: This is irrelevant. If the US can find a way to justify torturing someone, it will find a way to extend that reasoning to torture all of its prisoners of war.

From my opponent's Case: "My opponent then quotes a fictional character from a popular film."… "If torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used - and will be used - to obtain the information....no one who doubts that this is the case should be in a position of responsibility.""

My response: My opponent deems my quote less important because its origin is a work of fiction. Should we stop quoting literature? Should we deem all fictional resources irrelevant? Later, he refers to an example on nuclear bombs. How can we know, without a doubt, that the P.O.W. will know this information? When has this occurred?

Mad Props for answering my challenge!!! I didn't except an answer.

My opponent refers to secrecy on the part of the government.
WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT TRY TO HIDE AS GREAT OF AN ACCHIEVEMENT AS A VICTORY IN THE WAR AGAINST TERROR IN TIMES OF LOW ECONOMY AND MORAL?
My opponent will most likely refer to national security in his answer. Is this the sole motivation, or could the US be hiding breaches in international treaties which would render US nationals to the mercy of such courts as the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity?

From my opponent's Case: "He seemed to claim that it would be necessary to put victims through "hopeless years of confinement and deprivation". This is of course untrue. There are many sources that indicate that torture is effective within hours. "

My Response: I completely agree that torture can be affective in a few hours. However, if the questioner doesn't get answers, will he stop the torture? How about Guantanamo Bay and other prisons? Can you say that the P.O.W.s were only detained for a few hours and subjected only to minimal pain?

From my opponent's Case: "I know that in actuality the United States does keep people in the most awful conditions, and make them suffer extremely prolonged anguish, humiliation and near mental extermination. I am not saying this is just - it clearly is not. I am merely saying that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects. A few hours is plenty."

My response: My opponent agrees with the point I made above! He admits to the US's actions in detainment for an extended period of time. He later is trying to justify his argument by saying that the US is justified in torturing for short time periods. Is this realistic? Does he really expect us to believe that torture by the US is justified when he agrees with the lack of morals on the US's part?

From my opponent's Case: "With proper regulation and checks and balances, it can brought under control and made safe from ritualiation." …My opponent challenged me to prove that Government-sanctioned torture will only be used for the country's interest. I agree with Posner and Vermeule that with the right legal framework, this can be enforced."

My response: Wouldn't this render US nationals under the jurisdiction of international courts, such as the ICC? Is this to the best interest of the US? Isn't that unconstitutional?

------------------

To defend my case

From my opponent's Case: "Those killed by armed police are not afforded the luxury of a fair trial."

My Response: ARMED POLICE??? How is this even relevant to the torture of Prisoners of War?

From my opponent's Case: The US does indeed have the obligation to further human rights. However, all human rights need to be balanced with the needs of the wider society - they are not absolutes.

My response: SHOULD WE IGNORE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A HEGEMON AND THOSE STATED BY THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT PROVES EASIER?

From my opponent's Case: There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema or racially insult people. There is a right to privacy, but not, as the European Convention puts it, "when necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others" [3].

My Response: For the rest of the contention, my opponent refers to John Locke's Social Contract theory. (When we join a society, we give away some of our rights for protection)

WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?

For my second contention, my opponent refers to the past breaches to justify the "New and Improved" definition that the US has adapted.

My opponent lacks the personal knowledge to make an argument against my contention.

In his study for the University of La Verne in 2007, Jeff W. LeBlanc argues and proves the immorality of the re-interpretation. After reading this paper, my opponent can argue against it.

The paper's cover can be found in the following link:
http://www.americanstudents.us...

Unfortunately, I could not find the entire article for free, but feel free to purchase it if you wish. The study makes very fascinaing observations and is truly worth a close look.

From my opponent's Case: "I disagree with the term "war on terror", just as I disagree with the "war on drugs" or the "war on teenage pregnancy" [no - pregnant teenagers should not be treated as POWs]. People planning to cause terror through explosion or other means should be treated as that, and not as some idea of a formalised army."

My Response: "war on drugs"/"war on teenage pregnancy"???? How is this relevant???

On to the Key Voting Issues:

My opponent lacks the personal knowledge to argue against one of my contentions.
My opponent does not provide us with as tangible evidence as it would be possible.
My opponent does not argue against the arguments portraying to morality as well as I do.
My opponent's case has fundamental structure flaws.
My opponent fails to refute my arguments very effectively.
I do a much better job in defending my case than he does.
I successfully carried out my burden, when my opponent failed in carrying his.

Awesome debate- hope to hear more from you!
proberts84

Pro

I would like to thank LDer for this debate. It has been very interesting and enjoyable.

Saying that, some of the avenues in this debate are getting a little stale as we circle around the same points. I will therefore make a final case, and then very briefly defend my previous points.

Let's first look at some common ground. My opponent has never argued with my point that under certain circumstances, torture is moral. For example, where not torturing would lead to the death of many people. We also agree that the United States has carried out acts of torture in many abhorrent ways that we both condemn.

This splits our points of disagreement into three rough camps: whether the circumstances actually exist in the United States that would make torture moral; whether international law would make such torture unjust; and whether the act of torture would create a slippery slope ending with the habitual torture of every American criminal and prisoner of war.

As previously stated, the intelligence services in the United States operate under an impenetrable cloak of secrecy. I think, however, it is possible to say for certain that there are many people in the world who are actively planning acts of mass murder of American citizens. From time to time one is caught. If the only way to prevent these acts of mass murder from taking place is to extract information from the seized person, then, when no other option exists, torture is moral. As I said before, justification arrises from the circumstances - it will not be moral to torture most terrorist suspects, but there will be some where torture is the only moral course.

It is fair to say that the burden of proof is on my opponent for showing that torture in the United States is made unjust by international law. This is a burden he has failed to carry. There is a difference between what is legal (be it constitutional, or under international law) and what is just. Laws come and go, but what is just remains. Incidentally, if my opponent is trying to make legal arguments, he should know that the US is not a member of the ICC.

The third point, the slippery slope, also places the burden of proof with my opponent. I have given example methods of preventing this from occurring, but he doesn't comment on those and keeps blindly implying it will occur anyway.

I am afraid my opponent has employed something of a scatter-gun technique - giving ill-thought through responses to the minutiae of half of my arguments without commenting on the others or confronting my central thrust. He has attempted to support his arguments by referencing a film character and a paper that I suspect he has never read.

Vote Pro.

----------------------------------

For those interested, the defense of my previous points:

Firstly, let's try to back out of this rabbit hole we've run down over the word "necessary":

"In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so." The word is not abusive, as there are two courses of action, two different outcomes, and a choice. I have asserted the course which I believe is logical.

I made the point "certain things, such as torture and killing people, are in isolation wrong. They can be ethical, however, if the alternative is worse". My opponent asked where we draw the line. Purely logically, the answer is simple: things that are in isolation wrong become ethical at exactly the point when the alternative is worse, for some definition of "worse". "Worse" would need to be pre-defined.

Elsewhere in my arguments, I tried to use armed police as an example of this point, but unfortunately my explanation was not clear enough for my opponent to understand the link. For the police to shoot someone they suspect of being criminal, without a fair trial by jury, is in isolation wrong. If the consequences of not shooting them are worse, for example if the suspect is about to kill other people, then it becomes ethical. This is not a slippery slope.

My opponent then claims that if there exists a person that the US can justify torturing, it will then torture all prisoners of war. I utterly disagree. Torture is sometimes a necessary evil. It is not something that countries look for excuses to do for the hell of it. Even if it was, a bit of regulation can work wonders. If my opponent really wants me to take points like this seriously, he needs to supply some kind of reasoning or reference.

The quote I gave from the judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit spoke of a theoretical situation that obviously has not occurred yet.

My opponent asked why the Government would hide a victory in the war against terror. Oh my, there are so many reasons. They do not want to reveal how much they know. They do not to alarm the public. They do not want to jeopardise any other operations. They do not want to betray any secrets given by other governments.

I am not sure whether the United States has an equivalent of the British thirty year rule (more formally, Public Records Act 1958), but if my opponent really thinks that governments do not keep this sort of information classified, he should look at the contents of the recently-declassified papers of the 1970s.

My opponent then answers his own question about Guantanamo Bay. He also asks about when torture is stopped. If torture is to be used legally, there must be maximum lengths for torture defined under law.

My opponent keeps talking about the ICC. The United States has not joined the ICC. Also, I refer back to the distinction between legal and just.

My opponent asked whether "we should ignore our responsibilities as a hegemon and those stated by the constitution when it proves easier?". Of course not - who said anything about "easier"? The reality is that all human rights are moderated by the rights of others.

My opponent asks again about where to draw the line - my response is the same.

My opponent then accuses me of being lacking in personal knowledge, and then references a very obscure paper which I suspect he has never read (he refers to it but makes no points from it). Since it is not in the university library of my city, nor is it one of the 920,000 journals in the British Library, I have not had a chance to read it. From the little that is freely available online, it seems to be making the point that if the U.S. tortures suspected terrorists, then captured uniformed U.S. soldiers will risk being tortured themselves. Unfortunately, captured U.S. soldiers are already at risk from being tortured - terrorists do not tend to follow the Geneva conventions.

--------------------------

[If you've come to the bottom of this argument looking for the summary, please find it at the top.]
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Frosty5794 7 years ago
Frosty5794
The big problem is that the PRO asserts the utilitarian standpoint that it is good to kill a few to save many. As I see it, this is the be-all end-all of the debate, (kind of like topicality in policy). If the CON lets this go uncontested, the PRO almost automatically wins. So, I would urge the CON in this situation to stand by the resolution: Is the UNITED STATES justified in torturing terrorist suspects.

First, by inherency, it is not justified as torture is illegal in the US. So, while thats a kind of stupid arguement, it directly wins you the round. A better way to debate however, is to look at the actual foundation of the US. It is meant to be a country dedicated to the rights of the people. And therefore, it would rather have guilty people out of jail, than have innocent people in jail. So the detaining and torturing of suspects for acts of terror cannot be justified by the foundations the US rests upon.
Posted by SniperJake94 8 years ago
SniperJake94
where's the V & VC?
Posted by lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
Never mind. Google comes through again.

LDer, maybe you should consider making an argument in the first round to set the tone.
Posted by lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
What the hell is an LD debate?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Tip for Con: Always have your argument in a statement not a question. Instead of should the U.S. not be allowed have P.O.W status, it should be U.S. should be allowed have P.O.W status. This also goes for the resolution. The resolution should be a statement, not a question.
Posted by LDer 8 years ago
LDer
I think i'm really starting to enjoy this
Posted by LDer 8 years ago
LDer
Hey wpfairbanks. It's awesome that you think i'm pompous. This site is not designed for a particular form of debate. Rather, for a freeform modifiable type of debate. Because i'm an LDer (big surprise), I just like to debate the resolutions in that way. Unfortunately, most of my debates end up going into a freeformed style with no room for framework.
Posted by wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
You always say you want LD style, but how could it not be on this site. It kind of goes without saying, it just sounds pompous
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I would agree if the terms Terrorist and Torture were defined.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
LDerproberts84Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by grayron 8 years ago
grayron
LDerproberts84Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
LDerproberts84Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
LDerproberts84Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
LDerproberts84Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
LDerproberts84Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07