The Instigator
alpaca
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
adealornodeal
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Waterboarding is Good

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 1 vote the winner is...
adealornodeal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,130 times Debate No: 13938
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

alpaca

Pro

Arguments begin round 2.
adealornodeal

Con

Resolved: That waterboarding practices used by the United States are good.

Definitions:

Waterboarding [1]: A form of torture in which the victim is immobilized and has water poured on his or her face, producing a severe gag reflex, to simulate drowning.

Good [2]:
1. Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious.
2. Satisfactory in quality.
3. Of high quality; excellent.

Framework:

The scope of today's debate will be limited to the United States and it's practice of waterboarding. It is the burden of the Pro to prove that waterboarding is good based on his interpretation of the definition of "good", which I will contest is necessary. The burden of the Con is to refute all contentions proposed by the Pro. I will also present my own points in Round 2.

A note I'd like to add: new arguments may not be introduced after Round 3.

I wish my opponent luck and thank him for his challenge.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
alpaca

Pro

First of all, I'd like to offer the following definition of good.
S: (adj) good, well (resulting favorably), from the princeton dictionary[1]

Furthermore, the debate is not to center around waterboarding being illegal as Barack Obama has banned it, this debate is just about whether it is 'good' or not. For this debate, I'd like to provide a framework.

Framework: When we look at waterboarding as an enhanced form of criminal interrogation, we must look at the alternatives. Therefore, if I, as the affirmative team, can prove that waterboarding is better than the alternatives, then the round should go to me.

Contention 1: Waterboarding is not torture
The United States Code of Law, specifically Title I, Chapter 113C, section 2340, defines torture as the following:

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

First of all, waterboarding is not intended to "inflict severe physical or mental suffering" as stated in provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation method like waterboarding is to gain valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain. Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary pain and suffering. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway? Tortured subjects generally give false, misleading "confessions" that are intended immediately to stop the procedure, and to send agents on a "wildgoose chase." Techniques that violate section 1 are actually against the interests of the CIA, and could never produce valuable intelligence.
The practice of water boarding does not violate section 2. Like I previously stated, there is no exclusive intention of inflicting "severe physical pain or suffering." Further, the interrogator never physically strikes or attacks the subject; the water is made to simulate the gag reflex of drowning, and there is no physical pain. The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but "some discomfort" is nothing close to "severe suffering." Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation, and could not provide legitimate intelligence, which is the primary reason for waterboarding. Remember, the CIA is not looking for a culprit; to date, the three individuals who have been waterboarded were known terrorists. Rather, the CIA is looking for new intelligence that it can use in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. The CIA does not benefit from measures that cause prolonged mental harm because the subject cannot provide the needed information.

In Response to section C, and D, There should be no question regarding whether the subject is going to die or the subject should believe he is going to die. With waterboarding, no such question exists; the subject is never verbally, nor physically threatened with imminent death. Waterboarding is a simulation, and is not actual drowning. When waterboarded by CIA professionals, the subject can never face nor expect a legitimate threat of imminent death; further, CIA professionals know the technique is not being used to murder the subject, and subsequently do not intend to kill the subject. Section 2, C and D, like A and B, do not apply to waterboarding because there is no imminent threat of death; it is a simulation designed to produce valuable intelligence, not maliciously to harm or kill terrorists.

The last provision, found in the latter half of Section 2, D, which mentions "the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality," also does not apply to waterboarding. The only "substance" used in the technique is water; certainly, we can agree that water is not mind-altering like LSD, PCP, Cocaine, or any major hallucinogen or narcotic. Second, why would the CIA even want to use a mind-altering substance? Once again, the purpose of an enhanced interrogation is to produce valuable, legitimate, and trustworthy intelligence. By using substances to alter the normal thought processes of subjects, could the CIA honestly expect legitimate results?[2]

Contention 2: Waterboarding is beneficial
As I have previously mentioned, the objective of waterboarding is for the United States to obtain information which couldn't be gained any other way. While water boarding is an extreme, such methods are required. In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was waterboarded a total of 183 times by the CIA. Khalid was one of Osama Bin Laden's 'most trusted associates' and his name is linked to most of al Qaeda's recent operations.[3] Furthermore, he admitted to planning the devastating 9/11 attacks; a criminal mastermind.[4]

According to the Bush Administration, Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Hambali, the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. He also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England. Michael Sheehan, a former counterterrorism official at the State Department, said, "K.S.M. is the poster boy for using tough but legal tactics. He's the reason these techniques exist. You can save lives with the kind of information he could give up."[5]

Contention 3: Waterboarding is quick and efficient
Rather than spending months interrogating a suspect, waterboarding is quick and efficient. According to the Independent, CIA waterboarding 'broke suspect after 35 seconds'[6] Abu Zabaida was waterboarded for a total of 35 seconds, and after the experience, instantly revealed everything. This is waterboarding is good. Abu Zabaida had been uncooperative ever since he had been captured a year ago, and the CIA had not been able to get anything from him with conventional interrogation. Waterboarding is like a secret weapon, that's quick, easy, cheap, and effective.

Therefore, for these reasons you should vote affirmative.

[1]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2]http://thebrownspectator.com...
[3]http://edition.cnn.com...
[4]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[5]http://www.newyorker.com...
[6]http://www.independent.co.uk...
adealornodeal

Con

Framework:

My opponent forgets that the burden of proof rests on the Pro. It is not the Con's job to provide an alternative to waterboarding, but rather to merely disprove the Pro's contentions. The burden of proof of the Pro is to prove that waterboarding is good; not that it is better than alternatives, which is not part of the resolution and thus is unrelated to the debate. Judges should make the distinction between waterboarding being good and waterboarding being better than other forms of torture; this round will not deal with the latter, only the former.

I will now respond to my opponent's case.

-------

Contention 1: Waterboarding is not torture

It seems odd that if waterboarding really is not torture, my opponent should even feel the need to bring this defensive point up in this debate. His contention is riddled with fallacies. I have broken it down into three sections to better organize his ideas.

1A: No intent to harm/waterboarding is not torture

"First of all, waterboarding is not intended to "inflict severe physical or mental suffering" as stated in provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation method like waterboarding is to gain valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain."

Whilst the point of waterboarding is to gain valuable information, my opponent is wrong that there is no intent to maliciously inflict pain. The basic purpose of waterboarding is to "maliciously inflict pain" in order to attain this "valuable information".

John McCain describes in the November 28, 2007 Presidential Debate his astonishment towards those who believe waterboarding is not torture.

"Then I am astonished that you would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture… We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me..." [1]

Then my opponent states: "The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but "some discomfort" is nothing close to "severe suffering.""

Has my opponent ever been waterboarded? The definitions that I provide (which he accepts) explains how waterboarding is intended to produce a "severe gag reflex, to simulate drowning."

Bob Barr, former US House Representative (R-GA) describes waterboarding as causing "excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim's lungs fill with water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer's best friend- easy, quick, and nonevidentiary." [1]

It's clear that waterboarding is torture, but for argumentation's sake, let's assume my opponent is right and that waterboarding does not inflict pain. If it does not inflict pain, then the prisoner/victim will have no incentive to disclose information; the reason they disclose is to make the pain stop. No pain, no disclosure. My opponent loses this contention whether waterboarding is painful or not.

1B: Intent is not to torture.

"Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary pain and suffering. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway?"

False; the purpose of waterboarding is to extract information by torturing said prisoner. The logic is that the prisoner/victim will disclose any information in his or her possession in order to end the torture.

Surely, if inflicting pain was not the goal, an interrogation in order to ask for that valuable information would suffice. However, the goal is to inflict pain, because the logic behind waterboarding is that only be inflicting pain will the victim reveal his possessed information.

1C: Waterboarding mains prisoner mentally, making it illogical to practice waterboarding

"Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation"

My opponent's statement is actually a reason not to use waterboarding. Researchers have found that the mental effects of waterboarding are actually "destroying the very memories they're supposed to recover. Shane O'Mara, a stress researcher at Ireland's Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience. "These techniques cause severe, repeated and prolonged stress, which compromises brain tissue supporting memory and executive function." [4]

This contention is entirely a fallacy and is incorrect.

-------

Contention 2: Waterboarding is beneficial

"I have previously mentioned, the objective of waterboarding is for the United States to obtain information which couldn't be gained any other way."

It is the BOP of the Pro to show that other methods don't work. Waterboarding has only been used by the United States on three individuals in the past decade. [2] In regards to the information obtained from those three interrogations, it is unanimously agreed that information obtained from these situations didn't even prevent any imminent attacks – interrogation techniques would have obtained the same answers.

John McCain disproves my opponent's point as well, during the November 2007 Presidential debate, when he explains the following:

"Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else." [1]

--------

Contention 3: Waterboarding is quick and efficient

I have four observations:

1) Rape is very quick and efficient. You could spend weeks, months, maybe more trying to seduce "the one", but really, rape just cuts to the chase. Let's just use that instead.

2) My opponent states that waterboarding "broke [the] suspect after 35 seconds' Abu Zabaida was waterboarded for a total of 35 seconds, and after the experience, instantly revealed everything."

This statement is contradictory to the claim my opponent makes earlier in Contention 1, where he states that torture will make prisoners less inclined to divulge information. Since we have already established that waterboarding is torture, and now that my opponent has proven that this torture method has worked in the past, we can conclude that waterboarding is a torture method where pain is purposefully used with the intent of discovering information.

3) "Rather than spending months interrogating a suspect, waterboarding is quick and efficient."

By making this statement, the Pro concedes that interrogation techniques will also achieve the desired outcome of waterboarding, except by taking more time. My opponent in this statement tells us that by investing more time in interrogations, we will no longer need to torture our prisoners and he has thus proven that waterboarding is not necessary.

4) Waterboarding is actually very inefficient. My opponent is right that it took 35 seconds to "break" Abu Zubayadah (Zabaida) – but that was on the 83rd try.

"We now know that CIA torturers waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed precisely 183 times and Abu Zubaydah [Zabadia] 83 times. That comes to 266 times in all."

-----

Because waterboarding is a form of torture, is not as beneficial as my opponent claims, and is not efficient, I strongly urge a CON vote.

Citations:
[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
alpaca

Pro

alpaca forfeited this round.
adealornodeal

Con

I will wait till Round 4 to see if my opponent chooses to respond. For now, extend all my arguments and vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
alpaca

Pro

My opponent says that "It is not the Con's job to provide an alternative to waterboarding, but rather to merely disprove the Pro's contentions. This is wrong. My framework simply states that in order for waterboarding to be considered "good" as the resolution states, all I have to do is prove that it is "good" in comparison to the alternatives.

Now, I shall begin my refuting my opponent's statements.

1A: In this statement, my opponent states that the basic purpose of waterboarding is to maliciously inflict pain in order to attain this valuable information. Maliciously would mean a desire to cause pain. However, the CIA's true desire is to gain the valuable information that could save lives, and if causing a little pain to TERRORISTS could save THOUSANDS of american citizens' lives, why would we protect one terrorist over thousands of innocent americans. Furthermore, our opponent cites the quote from John Mccain, that this kind of torture is intolerable. However, while it may be a tad drastic, it is necessary; we're using such a technique on 1 man, to save the lives of thousands. So, voting AFF would mean you would like to be free from harm from such terrorists, but voting NEG is effectively saying you would allow these terrorists; like the man who planned 9/11 one of the most tragic incidents in America's history, to retain their evidence about future attacks, which we would not be able to prevent, by voting NEG.

Waterboarding is an issue of discomfort, not pain. Waterboarding will lead men to cave, and to let out the evidence, just as pain would do. Let's compare to say claustrophobia, but on a larger scale. If you were claustrophobic and trapped in a tiny box, you would scream, and to anything to get out of this box. But technically, the person wouldn't be feeling pain, rather discomfort. Waterboarding works the same way. Therefore, this contention goes to the affirmative.

1B: intent is not to torture
In the quote, my opponent fails to see "ultimately producing valuable intelligence". While in the process of waterboarding, the person may feel some discomfort, the ultimate goal is to produce valuable evidence, which could effectively "save lives". Also, all waterboarding does is induce the gag reflex, there is NO harm done to the victim.

1C: mental damage
My opponent's response is irrelevant, as we still retrieve the important material that can save thousands of innocent Americans' lives.

Contention 2: Waterboarding is beneficial
While waterboarding has only been used by the United States on three individuals in the past decade, it is clear and easy to see that these efforts have been beneficial. He states that the information gained didn't prevent any imminent attacks and that interrogation techniques would have worked the same way. I will break up the responses into 2 categories.

A) Waterboarding hasn't prevented any attacks.

Let's look at this logically. We have managed to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [KSM], the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Once waterboarded, " He started talking, and he never stopped," this former officer said. KSM was never water-boarded again, and in hours and hours of conversation with his interrogators, often over a cup of tea, he poured out his soul and the murderous deeds he committed." Furthermore," A current CIA official says that KSM actually told interrogators the only reason he confessed was because of the water-boarding." [1] With these confessions, and this information, this could have prevented future attacks conducted by him, as we learned of what he had done, how he had done it, etc. By waterboarding KSM, the evidence could potentially save lives.

And furthermore, since I must provide evidence, according to the LA Times, waterboarding prevented a terrorist attack in Los Angeles.[2]

B) Interrogation techniques could have worked the same way

By stating this, my opponent is completely wrong in stating this, and we have the following responses.
1) Interrogation results wouldn't be the same
Waterboarding is unique, in the sense that the induction of the gag reflex would provide a bigger incentive for these terrorists to cave, and reveal the evidence
2) Waterboarding is quick and efficient
The CIA had spent months interrogating KSM, but to no avail. Waterboarding did this so much quicker.

Contention 3: Waterboarding is quick and efficient
1) Rape is completely unrelated. Rape is illegal because it's an American, and they have their rights. However, terrorists are the ones that are waterboarded, and you lose your rights once you infringe on others'.

2) This goes to the affirmative side, as we have proven that Waterboarding is NOT torture.

3) I have already proven that interrogation techniques will not achieve the desired outcome of waterboarding. My opponent has clearly misunderstood my point, I said 'efficient' meaning that waterboarding is efficient, or functions correctly, whereas interrogation techniques do not, since they do NOT have the same results of waterboarding.

4) My opponent states that Abu Zabaida was waterboarded 83 times and KSM 183 times. However, let's compare this to months, and even years of interrogation, where there isn't even an incentive for a terrorist to give up information, the interrogation would go on for quite a time. While waterboarding isn't a perfect method, all we have to do today is that waterboarding is "good".

Taking a better look at the waterboarding of KSM, "Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again." In this one month of 183 instances of waterboarding, we managed to get this information, after much more than a month of interrogation.[3]

Therefore, this contention still stands.

And therefore, because I have effectively refuted all of my opponent's points, I urge a strong vote in the affirmation for today's debate.

[1]http://blogs.abcnews.com...
[2]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...
[3]http://www.washingtonpost.com...
adealornodeal

Con

I will be reviewing the major issues in this round.

----

Framework: My opponent keeps claiming that since his framework says the con must provide alternatives, then it must be so. Sadly, the resolution reads "Resolved: That waterboarding practices used by the United States are good." My opponent did not contest this. Furthermore, the title of the debate, which my opponent himself chose, states "Waterboarding is good". Both of these indicate that the burden of the pro is to show that waterboarding is good; neither make any mention of the con having to provide an alternate to waterboarding. Thus, the con does not have to provide any alternative.

"I have to do is prove that it is "good" in comparison to the alternatives."
This doesn't even make sense. Waterboarding can't be "good" compared to the alternatives; it can only be "better". The title of the debate and the resolution provided do not use the word better.

Thus, the framework is simple: it is the burden of the pro to prove that waterboarding is good using the definitions provided in Round 1 and 2. The burden of the con is to disprove these contentions.

----

Definitions:

The definition of good as defined by my opponent using the Princeton dictionary.

1. (adj) good, well (resulting favorably)
2. (adj) morally admirable
3. (adj) honorable, respectable

My opponent in his case defends waterboarding by stating that there is no intent to harm the victim and that waterboarding is not torture. Because he involves these elements in the debate, it is necessary for us to evaluate whether or not waterboarding is morally admirable, honorable, and respectable, along with whether or not it is efficient and effective.

Waterboarding: "A form of torture in which the victim is immobilized and has water poured on his or her face, producing a severe gag reflex, to simulate drowning."

----

Contentions:

1A: "No Intent to Harm:

"If causing a little pain to TERRORISTS could save THOUSANDS of american citizens' lives, why would we protect one terrorist over thousands of innocent americans."

As I have proven in Round 2, waterboarding has been used only on three terrorists. Only one of them revealed any sort of useful information, but the information had little to no effect on American safety, and it is nearly unanimously agreed that this information could be acquired using politically correct means. Furthermore, it took 183 tries to get the prisoner (KSM) to release this information. Contrary to my opponent's claim, waterboarding techniques used by the US has never saved any lives, let alone "thousands of lives".

"Waterboarding is an issue of discomfort, not pain"

If waterboarding wasn't so inhumane, my opponent's statement would almost be funny. If my opponent thinks that filling up your lungs with water to create an illusion of drowning is only "discomfort" and "not pain", that's fine. I commend his superhuman strength and tolerance, but waterboarding is still torture, and this point goes to the con. The very purpose of waterboarding is to cause enough pain to force the victim to disclose information. The very definition of waterboarding includes the word torture. Waterboarding: "A form of torture in which the victim is immobilized and has water poured on his or her face, producing a severe gag reflex, to simulate drowning."

1B: "Intent is not to torture"

My opponent doesn't actually respond to my contention, therefore I will reiterate what I posted in Round 2.

"Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary pain and suffering. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway?"

False; the purpose of waterboarding is to extract information by torturing said prisoner. The logic is that the prisoner/victim will disclose any information in his or her possession in order to end the torture.

Surely, if inflicting pain was not the goal, an interrogation in order to ask for that valuable information would suffice. However, the goal is to inflict pain, because the logic behind waterboarding is that only be inflicting pain will the victim reveal his possessed information.

1C: Mental Damage

My opponent concedes this point, but forgets the real impact. The intended outcome of waterboarding is to produce information from the victim; however, the process of waterboarding itself maims the victim and causes them to forget. Maybe that's why waterboarding has only worked once.

Contention 2: "Waterboarding is beneficial"

A)Waterboarding hasn't prevented any attacks
My opponent has successfully proven one thing: Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, after being waterboarded 183 times, drank tea and told interrogators that he committed numerous crimes we all already knew about.

He hasn't yet proven that waterboarding has "saved thousands of lives". He hasn't even proven that waterboarding has actually saved any lives.

Furthermore, my opponent concedes that waterboarding has only been used on three individuals and only one actually revealed anything. He doesn't respond to the fact that this took 183 tries; the other two prisoners were waterboarded over 200 times total and revealed nothing. Waterboarding, if anything, is a failure; and the one time it worked, we learned close to nothing.

B)Interrogation methods would have done the same thing

My opponent says two things in response. First he tells us that since waterboarding induces pain, it provides the victim with incentive to divulge information. Sadly, this has only worked once, and it wasn't useful. My opponent's statement also shows that he concedes the fact that waterboarding is torture and done with the intent to torture.

Secondly, he tells us that waterboarding is quick and efficient. As I've shown, it took over 200 tries to learn nothing from two of the three victims of waterboarding in the US. The last waterboarded prisoner, KSM, revealed useless information only after the 183rd try. Not efficient.

Contention 3: Waterboarding is "quick and efficient"

A)My opponent fails to recognize my analogy. My point was that although it may take time to accomplish a goal, it doesn't mean that we must resort to dishonorable and inhumane means to do so.
B)My opponent never proved that waterboarding isn't torture. The very definition of waterboarding uses the word torture.
C)Interrogation techniques would have achieved the exact same thing was waterboarding. At first, this sounds like it's impossible, but really, it's not. Considering that waterboarding has achieved second to nothing, interrogation techniques could easily fail as drastically if we tried to.
D)KSM and Abu Zabadia were waterboarded over 260 times total and revealed nothing. Waterboarding isn't quick, and it's not efficient. My opponent quotes evidence saying that KSM was shackled, diapered, and not fed for over a week. That means that waterboarding wasn't even the technique used to crack KSM; it was the food deprivation. This means that waterboarding ahs worked a total of 0 times.

---

Summary of the Round.

Waterboarding is torture: BAD. Even the definition of waterboarding includes the word torture.
There is intent to harm – bad. The logic behind waterboarding is to torture the prisoner until he spills the beans.

Waterboarding actually hurts prisoner memory – bad

Waterboarding is "the only method" – false. Vote goes to again to the con.

Waterboarding is "quick and efficient" – it isn't. KSM was waterboarded 183 times before revealing a thing.

Waterboarding has worked in the past – KSM would have been one example of a waterboarding "success", but as my opponent stated, he had been deprived of food for over a week when he finally cracked. It wasn't the waterboarding that made him talk; it was the food deprivation.

It's clear that waterboarding is not good. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
You too sir.
Posted by alpaca 6 years ago
alpaca
thanks for a good debate
Posted by USRugbyfan 6 years ago
USRugbyfan
From my perspective the argument from Con that because it gets answers it must be torture is key and must be disproved to the Pro, or else...
Posted by alpaca 6 years ago
alpaca
I'd like to apologize for forfeiting this round; I was at a debate tournament the whole time.
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
I forgot to label one of my quotes from Round 2. The quote is:

"We now know that CIA torturers waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed precisely 183 times and Abu Zubaydah 83 times. That comes to 266 times in all."

The citation for this quote is the third one provided, [3].
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zeyneb8989 6 years ago
zeyneb8989
alpacaadealornodealTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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