The Instigator
stinkbomb
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cameronl35
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Should waterboarding be allowed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 8 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,268 times Debate No: 20069
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (8)

 

stinkbomb

Pro

I strongly urge that waterboarding be allowed, for diversified reasons that are ABSOLUTELY crucial to achieve in order to have national success.

First off, waterboarding helps us as a nation alot. We get to interrogate lots of criminals, especially many terrorists and criminals that are harmful to the U.S. Without waterboarding, we will actually cause blood, and that would be even worse than waterboarding itself.

Second, waterboarding is very safe, and it is very suitable for torture. We need waterboarding not only for torture, but also to demonstrate that the U.s has lots of power. By not supporting waterboarding, you would be advocating for terrorists to go unharmed in the world without punishment.

That is why I strongly urge a PRO vote. I thank my opponent for accepting, and as I don't have much time, I will only allow one round. Thank you, and have fun.
cameronl35

Con

Thanks, stinkbomb, for posting this interesting topic that I have been waiting to debate. I will first be presenting a brief case of my own then finally the rebuttal.

Resolution: Waterboarding should be allowed

Definitions:

water boarding- Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, thus causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. [1]

allowed- declare or decide that (an event or activity) is legal or acceptable [2]

Case


The Argument

The argument is rather simple and consists of three premises:

1. Torture is immoral

2. Water boarding is torture

3. Water boarding is immoral

Premise 1

Torture is considered "a cause of severe pain or anguish" [3] Torture is not accepted under the social contract. It is a priori immoral to infringe upon another being's rights. Due to the fact that every individual has the right to humane treatment, making water boarding acceptable and allowing it is immoral. The resolution does not only allow us to look towards terrorists but water boarding in general since there is no specification. If water boarding is acceptable, children, employees, and other students could very well become victims of water boarding. Torture is never considered a moral act. Consider this: Is it right for me to cut off every limb of an individual's body? Of course not because a priori torture is immoral. There really needs to be no further justification

Premise 2

By definition, water boarding is torture. My opponent agrees that it is torture. There really needs to be no further explanation but refer to the video and picture to understand what water boarding is.




The victim is submerged under water repeatedly to simulate a drowning affect. "Water boarding has been around for centuries. It was a common interrogation technique during the Italian Inquisition of the 1500s and was used perhaps most famously in Cambodian prisons during the reign of the Khmer Rouge regime during the 1970s. As late as November 2005, water boarding was on the CIA's list of approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" intended for use against high-value terror suspects. And according to memos released by the U.S. Department of Justice in April 2009, water boarding was among 10 torture techniques authorized for the interrogation of an al-Qaida operative. In a nutshell, water boarding makes a person feel like he is drowning." [4] Thus water boarding is undisputably torture.

Premise 3

So when we come to the conclusion that waterboarding is torture and torture is immoral, water boarding is immoral. If it is immoral, it should not be accepted. Resolution negated.


Rebuttal

R1: Helps the nation

Pro provides no tangible evidence or warrant for us to come to this conclusion that it has helped us. This a common presupposition with no evidence and can be disregarded. According to The Washington Post "Bush administration officials, including former vice president Dick Cheney, have asserted that waterboarding led to important intelligence gains. It is not clear this is true. But even if it is, there is no evidence to suggest that such information could not have been gleaned using legal methods. Moreover, intelligence agents and military officials have consistently said that torture leads to unreliable admissions by victims who are desperate to stop the mistreatment." [5] This claim has been used time after time and has never been proven. If anything it hinders the nation. Take this quote from President Barack Obama for example: “If we want to lead around the world, part of our leadership is setting a good example. Waterboarding is torture. It’s contrary to America’s traditions. It’s contrary to our ideals.”

R2: Safeness of waterboarding

Water boarding is torture and is a very good simulation of drowning. While it seems ridiculous, water boarding can kill. "It's possible to kill someone this way if you're not careful, but the point of coercive methods isn't to kill you." [6] Water boarding is torture and can cause victims to regurgitate and run out of breath. As we all know running out of breath is not a safe thing. Again at the point at which Pro does not provide where this is occuring we can not assure that this is safe in all circumstances due to the lack of a warrant. Finally he states that terrorists will go unharmed but there is no evidence again and it is just a presumptuous myth.

Thus because water boarding is immoral and has no apparent benefit, it should not be allowed. Resolution negated. Thanks and vote CON.

Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

2. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;

3. http://dictionary.reference.com...;

4. http://science.howstuffworks.com...;

5. http://www.washingtonpost.com...;

6. http://waterboarding.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument says it all. The video itself argued its own case though.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Rather obvious....Pro made the debate only one round and thus could not respond to Con's contentions which, through a logical syllogism, demonstrated that waterboarding was immoral, and challenged Pro's own unjustified claims that waterboarding "helps us as a nation alot" and "is very safe, and it is very suitable for torture". Points for argumentation and sources obviously go to Con...
Vote Placed by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has an obvious win. He adequately negated each of Pro's already irrelevant points, and made very solid arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: see votes below
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious. PRO's case was destroyed, CON had sources PRO didn't.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: "Nuff said
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: One round debate = loss.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
stinkbombcameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Typical one round debate. Con adequately responds to Pro and presents his own solid case. Not much more to be said.