The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The United States should limit the CIA's power based on there interrogation technique

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,300 times Debate No: 14333
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Thanks for any potential debater
Round one Introduction
Round Two: Main Round
Round Three: Cross examination/clash
Round Four: conclusion


I thank my opponent for starting this debate

I have a few questions for clarification though. They are the following:

1. Which interrogation techniques are you reffering to?

2. What limits are you suggesting?

3. Can I run a K?

Resolutional analysis may occur if I find that your interpretation of resolution is unbalanced. I kow that there were concerns in the comments section, and they were adressed. I just ask that you not be too limting when defining the resolution.

I look forward to a fun and educational debate!
Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1


flamebreath forfeited this round.


Since pro has not specified which techniques should be limited, affirmation could result in all the CIA's power being eliminated. The impact of that is dangerous because the United State's foriegn policy would be undermined and hampered severely. The resolved is negated.
Debate Round No. 2


Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt on the floor for more than 40 hours while others are forced to stand naked in temperatures below 50 degrees for many hours and days. We must take in consideration that the CIA's interrogation technique is rather cruel and unconstitutional.

Contention one: interrogation technique

when looking into the limitation of the CIA's power, we must look into the fact that the interrogation technique used by the CIA is rather inhuman and should be banned however; rather than reducing the amount of cruelty implied within the interrogation techniques, the CIA has been reported to be authorized by the CIA. A new report issued in August by human Rights First and Physicians for Human Rights, two influential and prominent rights organization, gives us the first comprehensive look at the legality of ten so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques used by the CIA in light of the medical evidence on their mental and physical impact. This was also illustrated in the book “little brother” by Cory Doctorow in which Marcus’s right was deliberately taken away from him simply for been at the wrong place at the wrong time.

“In a 51 – 45 vote, the U.S. Senate passed this year’s authorization for intelligence activities. One of the most important provisions of the law this year was Section 327, which states:

(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.”


Contention two: constitution

The CIA for many years has gone against the constitution, the very foundation of our country. Although the CIA is a respected intelligence agency, we must find that it is still under the United states and therefore must fall under the constitution and other laws. The CIA has been reported to have gone against the fourth, fifth, sixth, eight and the fourteenth amendment as well as the constitutions habeas corpus in which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The CIA has also been reported of sending its victim to besare prisons around the world without letting them speak to there friends, family or even lawyers. We must find that this leaves the defendant/victim defenseless and subject to the CIA’s interrogation techniques.

“According to Jeffery H. Smith, partner at Arnold & Porter, LLP and former General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the answer is an overall failure to maintain the integrity of the intelligence process. On Tuesday, December 7, 2010, the ACS Washington, D.C. Lawyer Chapter held a brown bag lunch discussion on the challenges and responsibilities of lawyers at national security agencies, featuring Smith. Peter Schildkraut, partner at Arnold & Porter and former Chair of the ACS D.C. Lawyer Chapter, provided opening remarks.”



RougeFox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent did not give his speech so i belief that this debate is over.


I was out of town. Oh well.

The affirmative's constructive is not sufficient to vote aff. In an aff world, there is a risk that all of the CIA's interrogation techniques would be limited, because he doesn't define which techniques would not be limited because of the subjective nature of his arguments. The mere threat of this outweighs any impact of voting neg. Also, he didn't answer the questions I posed in round 1, so the aff's plan cannot be looked to. The resolution and arguments by pro were riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes. The resolved is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
Ugh. The line spacing is weird. Didn't realize that.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
The resolution doesn't make any sense, and the first round doesn't provide any relevant information to make sense of the resolution. Limit the CIA to what? It's too biased in Pro's favor until clarifications are made.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30