The Instigator
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
LB628
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Waterboarding is a justified method of interrogation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 5/10/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,745 times Debate No: 8206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (13)

 

rougeagent21

Pro

People tell me all the time that we cannot allow this "horrible atrocity" in America. I disagree strongly, and hope to sway a few opinions on this matter. So without further adu, the case for waterboarding.
Does waterboarding work? Without a doubt, yes. Abu Zubayda broke after 35 seconds of being waterboarded and, according to the man who did it, the information he gave let us stop "…a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks".

Torture is justified in saving lives-
It is justified to use water-boarding because it saves lives. Saving lives is the first obligation of the government; "to provide for the common defense." The idea of saving lives MUST be held above ethical principles. Scenario: It would be justified for a kid in school to attack another kid if he tried to stab a lower classmate. This scenario can be applied to the US and its government. Not only is the government justified in using water-boarding, it is an obligation too as well if there is sufficient evidence that leads to the saving of lives.

Torture is justified in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario -
There is substantial support to the notion that, from the decision-makers perspective, torture would be acceptable in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario as a means to save thousands if not millions of lives.

Waterboarding justly brings a terrorist face-to-face with death -
Waterboarding creates the special effect and feeling of drowning, and the inescapable fear of death. For a terrorist that wishes death upon his victims, it is just to bring him face-to-face with death through waterboarding. Considering that his victims are not given the luxury to live on, waterboarding is a a proportional punishment. And, by bringing a terrorist face-to-face with that which he wishes upon his victims, there is the remote possibility that he will ask forgiveness and seek redemption.

Waterboarding is highly valuable in the war on terror -
Water-boarding is a highly effective interrogation method for obtaining information. It produces a very intense period of time for a terrorist or suspected terrorist that has very likely to compel a terrorist to provide information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is very frequently cited as an instance in which waterboarding was used very effectively, causing Mohammed to provide "treasure troves" of important intelligence that helped save lives.Is waterboarding torture? Well, this CIA agent believes it is, as do a number of other very well-intentioned and reasonable people. I am not so sure that it is. The word "torture" carries a certain number of very weighty connotations that I'm not sure apply to waterboarding. Should it be a regular part of our interrogations? Of course not, and I'm very glad that it isn't. Let us remember here that for all the sturm und drang over waterboarding, it has been used only three times since 9/11, it hasn't been used since 2003, and a bipartisan group of our duly-elected officials had oversight over the program and registered no meaningful objections to it when it was in use. What we do know now, and many of us strongly suspected for some time, is that waterboarding was at the extreme point of a very carefully-followed and strictly-approved continuum of interrogation techniques. It was not used recklessly, as you might have gathered from the shrill MSM coverage and the frantic accusations from the left. But it has to be on the table. It has to be part of the continuum. Because of all the extreme things we could do, this one is by far the least damaging and it works.

Let's also remember something very, very important. As distasteful as waterboarding is, it is a successful and necessary evil in a very, very brutal war. We should not forget that the people on whom this technique was used held information that could have killed dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of us. We should also not forget that we are not waterboarding choirboys here. I'll bring Jules Crittenden in on this point:

But we're talking about thwarting terrorists who purposefully murder civilians by the thousands, not soldiers engaged in anything remotely resembling military operations. We're talking about people who put power drills into the kneecaps of people they capture, apply blowtorches to their bodies and cut their heads off for the cameras. It's an ugly war. If stopping them calls for harsh measures that the genteel, protected classes might find distasteful, so be it. The people who keep all of us safe have to do a lot of things not even close to waterboarding that the genteel classes would find distasteful.

I do not intend on making this a "well, those guys are worse" sort of argument. But we can not let the brutality of our enemy get very far from our memories. The effective, precise, expert and rare use of waterboarding on a savage enemy has saved lives. That, for me, is the end of the argument.
LB628

Con

People tell me all the time that we cannot allow this "horrible atrocity" in America. I disagree strongly, and hope to sway a few opinions on this matter. So without further adu, the case for waterboarding.
Does waterboarding work? Without a doubt, yes. Abu Zubayda broke after 35 seconds of being waterboarded and, according to the man who did it, the information he gave let us stop "…a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks".

============================================================================
Response
The people who are doing the water boarding are a biased source. Obviously they will claim that they gained useful information, because they do not wish to be punished. Has there ever been outside confirmation that these "dozens of attacks" would have occurred, and that it was not just him making things up because he did not want to be tortured?
============================================================================

Torture is justified in saving lives-
It is justified to use water-boarding because it saves lives. Saving lives is the first obligation of the government; "to provide for the common defense." The idea of saving lives MUST be held above ethical principles. Scenario: It would be justified for a kid in school to attack another kid if he tried to stab a lower classmate. This scenario can be applied to the US and its government. Not only is the government justified in using water-boarding, it is an obligation too as well if there is sufficient evidence that leads to the saving of lives.

============================================================================
Response
While I agree that saving lives is the first obligation of the government, the Pro must show that lives actually have been saved, otherwise we are simply torturing people for no reason. And that is bad.
The scenario you give is flawed. It is not that the US is responding, it is like a kid was pretending to kill another kid on suspicion that he would in the future, attack a different kid.
============================================================================

Torture is justified in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario -
There is substantial support to the notion that, from the decision-makers perspective, torture would be acceptable in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario as a means to save thousands if not millions of lives.

============================================================================
Response
The problem with that is the only way the decision-makers can actually know a ticking time-bomb scenario is happening is if they already know about the attack. Which defeats the necessity of needing information.
============================================================================

Waterboarding justly brings a terrorist face-to-face with death -
Waterboarding creates the special effect and feeling of drowning, and the inescapable fear of death. For a terrorist that wishes death upon his victims, it is just to bring him face-to-face with death through waterboarding. Considering that his victims are not given the luxury to live on, waterboarding is a a proportional punishment. And, by bringing a terrorist face-to-face with that which he wishes upon his victims, there is the remote possibility that he will ask forgiveness and seek redemption.

============================================================================
Response
Waterboarding is not used as a punishment. If it were, then it would be a sentencing option for those who have gone through the court systems. As such, it is irrelevant whether it would be a good punishment.
============================================================================

Waterboarding is highly valuable in the war on terror -
Water-boarding is a highly effective interrogation method for obtaining information. It produces a very intense period of time for a terrorist or suspected terrorist that has very likely to compel a terrorist to provide information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is very frequently cited as an instance in which waterboarding was used very effectively, causing Mohammed to provide "treasure troves" of important intelligence that helped save lives.Is waterboarding torture? Well, this CIA agent believes it is, as do a number of other very well-intentioned and reasonable people. I am not so sure that it is. The word "torture" carries a certain number of very weighty connotations that I'm not sure apply to waterboarding. Should it be a regular part of our interrogations? Of course not, and I'm very glad that it isn't. Let us remember here that for all the sturm und drang over waterboarding, it has been used only three times since 9/11, it hasn't been used since 2003, and a bipartisan group of our duly-elected officials had oversight over the program and registered no meaningful objections to it when it was in use. What we do know now, and many of us strongly suspected for some time, is that waterboarding was at the extreme point of a very carefully-followed and strictly-approved continuum of interrogation techniques. It was not used recklessly, as you might have gathered from the shrill MSM coverage and the frantic accusations from the left. But it has to be on the table. It has to be part of the continuum. Because of all the extreme things we could do, this one is by far the least damaging and it works.

============================================================================
Response
First, has there EVER been any confirmation of information that was gained from waterboarding. You know, getting the same information from a different source. Cause if there has not, the info is worthless. The dude could be just making things up.
Second, 3 times? Where are you getting your information? http://www.nytimes.com...
Third, a definition of torture. Intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain. Comes from here http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu.... Causing someone to feel like they are drowning 83 times definitely falls under acute physical and mental pain.
============================================================================
Let's also remember something very, very important. As distasteful as waterboarding is, it is a successful and necessary evil in a very, very brutal war. We should not forget that the people on whom this technique was used held information that could have killed dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of us. We should also not forget that we are not waterboarding choirboys here. I'll bring Jules Crittenden in on this point:

But we're talking about thwarting terrorists who purposefully murder civilians by the thousands, not soldiers engaged in anything remotely resembling military operations. We're talking about people who put power drills into the kneecaps of people they capture, apply blowtorches to their bodies and cut their heads off for the cameras. It's an ugly war. If stopping them calls for harsh measures that the genteel, protected classes might find distasteful, so be it. The people who keep all of us safe have to do a lot of things not even close to waterboarding that the genteel classes would find distasteful.
============================================================================
Ah, so their brutality justifies our brutality. Well, that just throws out any moral superiority or life saving arguments you want to bring up. It means we just devolve into an endless "Remember the atrocity they committed against us last time, which will excuse the atrocity we are about to commit today". An endless cycle of violence.

There is no reason for waterboarding. It is the senseless torture of humans, for no purpose, and with no gains.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Pro

" The people who are doing the water boarding are a biased source. Obviously they will claim that they gained useful information, because they do not wish to be punished. Has there ever been outside confirmation that these "dozens of attacks" would have occurred, and that it was not just him making things up because he did not want to be tortured?"

This report is from CNSN News. It tells about the CIA report on a recent case of water boarding. I would consider the CIA a "credible" source.
http://www.cnsnews.com...

"While I agree that saving lives is the first obligation of the government, the Pro must show that lives actually have been saved, otherwise we are simply torturing people for no reason. And that is bad."

Yes, lives HAVE been saved. Please see the previous report.

"The scenario you give is flawed. It is not that the US is responding, it is like a kid was pretending to kill another kid on suspicion that he would in the future, attack a different kid."

I don't see where you are getting that. It is showing that if an attack is imminent, it is justified to take the necessary actions to prevent it. You agreed that it is the government's responsibility, so what other way is there to uphold the responsibility?

"The problem with that is the only way the decision-makers can actually know a ticking time-bomb scenario is happening is if they already know about the attack. Which defeats the necessity of needing information."

We knew an attack was coming, just not the important details. Please read the entire article, and you will see specifically why we were OBLIGATED to water board the terrorist.

"Waterboarding is not used as a punishment. If it were, then it would be a sentencing option for those who have gone through the court systems. As such, it is irrelevant whether it would be a good punishment."

Fine, I will agree with you.

"First, has there EVER been any confirmation of information that was gained from waterboarding. You know, getting the same information from a different source. Cause if there has not, the info is worthless. The dude could be just making things up."

So could yours. I provided a legitimate example.

"Causing someone to feel like they are drowning 83 times definitely falls under acute physical and mental pain."

Well if it felt comfortable, then they wouldn't tell us anything, now would they?

"Ah, so their brutality justifies our brutality. Well, that just throws out any moral superiority or life saving arguments you want to bring up. It means we just devolve into an endless "Remember the atrocity they committed against us last time, which will excuse the atrocity we are about to commit today". An endless cycle of violence."

This is a non-unique argument. The same applies to jail, or any other kind of punishment. What are we going to do if we do not punish them? Will we stand by as they terrorize America? I would hope you don't think so. OK, so you say that we cannot use brutal methods to gather information. Then tell me, what are we going to do? I will leave you and the voters with this question. Thank you.
LB628

Con

Alright.

The first point in this debate seems to be whether or not lives have been saved through the use of waterboarding. My opponent cited the CNSNews report, but that report simply cites the CIA. And, for the purposes of this particular debate, I would not consider the CIA a reliable source, because they have a vested interest in not being prosecuted for torturing people for no reason. Indeed, to quote the article itself, "A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here." Note the term, assertions. The CIA has apparently not actually shown the evidence for this to the news.

The second point seems to be the issue of a ticking time-bomb scenario. There is one problem with a ticking-time bomb argument though. We cannot know that we need to get information about an attack unless WE ALREADY KNOW about the attack. If we already know about the attack, then what reason do we have to get information? Saying that it is acceptable to waterboard people on the suspicion that there could be an attack would mean that anyone could be waterboarded on the suspicion that they know about an attack. And that is definitely not justified.

In response to this, my opponent said we already knew about the attack, but did not know important details. This is just wrong. We suspected another attack would be coming. The important details we did not know were where, when, by whom, and how. If we know none of these, how can we possibly know that an attack is coming?

The third issue is confirmation of information. My opponents response to my argument that unless information gained by waterboarding is confirmed, we can never know whether or not it is true is simply that any source's information needs to be confirmed. This ignores the primary point of this argument. If we can get the information from other sources, we don't need to torture people to do it.

The fourth issue is whether or not waterboarding is torture. My opponent has effectively conceded this, only saying "Well if it felt comfortable, then they wouldn't tell us anything, now would they?". So, he admits that it is torture.

And finally, the issue of brutality. My opponents sole response is that the cycle of violence is non-unique, that it could be applied to any punishment. But he forgets, he already conceded that waterboarding not a punishment. As for internal punishments, the argument simply does not work. Do drug dealers or gangs recruit by saying "The man put me in jail, we need to get them back!"? No, not really. Do terrorists recruit by saying "Look at the horrific things the Americans have done to our countrymen! We must avenge them!" Yes, yes they do. The motivation behind crimes and terrorist attacks is different, and so using torture to combat terrorists simply breeds more terrorists.

So, to sum up, the only possible ballot is a con one. I have shown that other methods and other sources can be (and indeed must be) used to gain the same information that would be provided by waterboarding. Ergo, waterboarding serves no purpose whatsoever.
I have shown that using waterboarding to learn information about terrorists simply creates more terrorists.

Overall, I have shown that waterboarding does nothing which could not be done through non-torture means, that any information gained through waterboarding must also be gained through non-torture means in order to have any validity, and I have shown that the use of waterboarding simply creates more terrorists and more terrorist attacks.

It is brutal torture that serves no purpose, and promotes terrorism around the world.
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Pro

"The first point in this debate seems to be whether or not lives have been saved through the use of waterboarding. My opponent cited the CNSNews report, but that report simply cites the CIA. And, for the purposes of this particular debate, I would not consider the CIA a reliable source, because they have a vested interest in not being prosecuted for torturing people for no reason. Indeed, to quote the article itself, "A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here." Note the term, assertions. The CIA has apparently not actually shown the evidence for this to the news."

Lives HAVE been saved. Of course the CIA will not release all of the information, as interrogation is a classified operation. That is ridiculous to think they would tell us everything. They HAVE told us that because of waterboarding, American lives have been saved.

"The second point seems to be the issue of a ticking time-bomb scenario. There is one problem with a ticking-time bomb argument though. We cannot know that we need to get information about an attack unless WE ALREADY KNOW about the attack. If we already know about the attack, then what reason do we have to get information? Saying that it is acceptable to waterboard people on the suspicion that there could be an attack would mean that anyone could be waterboarded on the suspicion that they know about an attack. And that is definitely not justified."

You are missing the key point here. The terrorist TOLD US that there would be an attack. He said there would be an attack, but would not tell us where. What do you want to do? Put him in solitary confinement until he MIGHT crack someday later, or get that bastard to tell us when his buddies are going to kill our citizens?

"The third issue is confirmation of information. My opponents response to my argument that unless information gained by waterboarding is confirmed, we can never know whether or not it is true is simply that any source's information needs to be confirmed. This ignores the primary point of this argument. If we can get the information from other sources, we don't need to torture people to do it."

What do you want as confirmation? He told us that there would be an attack. Please read the article.

"And finally, the issue of brutality. My opponents sole response is that the cycle of violence is non-unique, that it could be applied to any punishment. But he forgets, he already conceded that waterboarding not a punishment. As for internal punishments, the argument simply does not work."

The same applies to interrogation. If it doesn't deprive them or hurt them, they don't say anything. That KILLS our citizens.

"Do drug dealers or gangs recruit by saying "The man put me in jail, we need to get them back!"? No, not really. Do terrorists recruit by saying "Look at the horrific things the Americans have done to our countrymen! We must avenge them!" Yes, yes they do. The motivation behind crimes and terrorist attacks is different, and so using torture to combat terrorists simply breeds more terrorists."

Once again, you are mistaken. The terrorists I have brought up (and most all of the middle-eastern ones for that matter) are radical Muslims. In case you didn't know, it is in their religion to kill all Christians (Americans). They have a "moral duty" to hunt us. So are we going to treat them nicely, and kindly ask them for the information on the next attack? No, the only way to get information is to make them give it to us, OR ELSE OUR CITIZENS DIE.

" I have shown that other methods and other sources can be (and indeed must be) used to gain the same information that would be provided by waterboarding. Ergo, waterboarding serves no purpose whatsoever."

You have shown nothing! Where in this debate have you offered an alternative?

"I have shown that using waterboarding to learn information about terrorists simply creates more terrorists."

Again, nope. I don't know how you are assuming this. Terrorists have a duty to kill/hurt us. We are completely justified in using self-defense techniques.

"It is brutal torture that serves no purpose, and promotes terrorism around the world."

Well, I just addressed your main points. Now hear mine, in which I will address your over-repetitive closing statement.

--POINT 1--
Protection of citizens

My opponent and I agree that the first duty of a government is to protect and serve its citizens. If the government fails to do this, they fail to uphold their duties. Therefore, the government must protect the citizens.

--POINT 2--
Counter Plan

As of now, there is none. My opponent has offered no other PROVEN method of interrogation. Therefore, we MUST protect the citizens using the available resources, however brutal they may be. Let us not forget our priorities here. We agreed that it is the FIRST duty to protect the citizens, NOT the terrorists who tried to kill our citizens. By logic, we must use waterboarding to maintain our priorities.

"It is brutal torture"
Yes, it has to be. Remember priorities here.

"that serves no purpose"
Well, except for protecting our citizens, as is our duty.

"and promotes terrorism around the world."
What?! Are you saying that by interrogating terrorists with waterboarding ENCOURAGES them to be terrorists, so that they might have the privilege of being waterboarded too? Think about rewards and punishments. If we wanted to promote terrorism, we would offer them money to kill us. If we wanted to deter terrorism, we would waterboard them so they would stop. Clear?

Voters, please keep this final point in mind:
WE MUST PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS IS BY WATERBOARDING TERRORISTS. ARE WE GOING TO PROTECT OUR OWN RIGHTS, OR THE "RIGHTS" OF THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO TAKE OURS AWAY? US OR THEM. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Therefore, I urge you to vote for safety of citizens, maintenance of duty, and above all, justice. Thank you.
LB628

Con

I am going to start by addressing his responses, and then just do an overview and voters.

1)
"Lives HAVE been saved. Of course the CIA will not release all of the information, as interrogation is a classified operation. That is ridiculous to think they would tell us everything. They HAVE told us that because of waterboarding, American lives have been saved."

You completely ignored the point of my argument, which is that the CIA is a biased source. They have a definite reason for lying, or at least twisting the truth, because it means that they won't be prosecuted. As such, I am not going to accept this on their statement alone.

2)
"You are missing the key point here. The terrorist TOLD US that there would be an attack. He said there would be an attack, but would not tell us where. What do you want to do? Put him in solitary confinement until he MIGHT crack someday later, or get that bastard to tell us when his buddies are going to kill our citizens?"

First, cross-apply my argument about confirmation. Why would you accept the word of someone you just tortured at face-value? And second, there is the possibility, though I know it seems outrageous, that he might not know anything more than that. For example, I know Obama wants to move more troops into Afghanistan. I don't know when, or how
or by what route. I just know he wants it to occur. Not every terrorist is privy to every secret of their organization.

3)
"What do you want as confirmation? He told us that there would be an attack. Please read the article."

I have read the article. And what I want as confirmation is someone OTHER than someone who has been tortured to confirm information. Otherwise, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that we were not just lied to.

4)
"The same applies to interrogation. If it doesn't deprive them or hurt them, they don't say anything. That KILLS our citizens."

This is completely non-responsive. I was talking about the cycle of violence, and how using brutal methods on terrorists simply gives them better propaganda with which to recruit new terrorists, and how the same does not apply to internal punishments. This does not in any way address that.

5)
"Once again, you are mistaken. The terrorists I have brought up (and most all of the middle-eastern ones for that matter) are radical Muslims. In case you didn't know, it is in their religion to kill all Christians (Americans). They have a "moral duty" to hunt us. So are we going to treat them nicely, and kindly ask them for the information on the next attack? No, the only way to get information is to make them give it to us, OR ELSE OUR CITIZENS DIE."

First of all, you have yet to show that any attacks would occur if waterboarding had not been used. And second, this too is non-responsive. I was still discussing the cycle of violence argument. Whether or not we have to treat them nicely in order to get information is irrelevant to that argument.

6)
"You have shown nothing! Where in this debate have you offered an alternative?"
I don't have to. It is my burden to show that waterboarding is not a justified method of interrogation, and yours to prove that it is. I don't need to provide an alternative way to get information.

7)
"As of now, there is none. My opponent has offered no other PROVEN method of interrogation. Therefore, we MUST protect the citizens using the available resources, however brutal they may be. Let us not forget our priorities here. We agreed that it is the FIRST duty to protect the citizens, NOT the terrorists who tried to kill our citizens. By logic, we must use waterboarding to maintain our priorities."

I concur that it is the first duty to protect the citizens. But you have yet to show how waterboarding protects the citizens. I have already pointed out that I do not have to provide an alternative. But at the point where the resource my opponent advocates using has NOT been shown to work, and using it is an extremely horrific act, then no, we are not obligated to use it.

8)
"What?! Are you saying that by interrogating terrorists with waterboarding ENCOURAGES them to be terrorists, so that they might have the privilege of being waterboarded too? Think about rewards and punishments. If we wanted to promote terrorism, we would offer them money to kill us. If we wanted to deter terrorism, we would waterboard them so they would stop. Clear?"

You are completely misunderstanding the argument. I am not saying that waterboarding encourages the terrorists who were waterboarded. I am saying it provides extremely effective propaganda that is used to recruit more terrorists, because it is used as a demonstration of the evil the West is capable of. Clear?

To conclude, my opponent has never shown that waterboarding is at all effective or provides useful information. By contrast I have shown that in order for information gained by waterboarding to be useful, it would have to be confirmed by an outside source, which makes waterboarding unnecessary. I have shown that waterboarding merely spawns more terrorists and perpetuates the problem.
The only option is a Con ballot.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Actually, there are SOME physical effects of waterboarding. I try not to lie (much :) during debates.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
Oh and con, if you are going to argue that the CIA is a biased source, please provide an actual counter source. A biased source is still better than no source at all.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
Pro should have argued waterboarding has no real physicals effects and is purely phycological
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Damn, must have slipped under my radar. lol
Looks like LB's making a decent go of it though.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
I was kind of expecting him or Johnicle to take this. First come first serve!
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
You should debate this with 'Feverish'
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The ticking time bomb problem is the compelling argument. Know that the bomb is ticking does not equate to knowing where it is. Waterboarding is then required to save lives.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Riley09 8 years ago
Riley09
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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 kareemcr7 8 years ago
kareemcr7
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by DSanteramo 8 years ago
DSanteramo
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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 LB628 8 years ago
LB628
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
rougeagent21LB628Tied
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