The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
K0N
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

Waterboarding is an effective strategy.

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: 1/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,560 times Debate No: 2231
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (21)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

Waterboarding has already been a proven success. Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda chief, was waterboarded in 2002. Within 30 seconds, he broke. He provided valued information, such as: Omar al-Faruq, an agent of Jemaah Islamiya, al-Qaeda's Indonesian branch. Information he provided caused U.S. officials to raise America's threat level from Elevated to High in September 2002; Rahim al-Nashiri, al-Qaeda's Arabian Peninsula operations chief, trained terrorists in Afghanistan and led al-Qaeda's October 12, 2000, bombing of the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen. That attack killed 17 American sailors and injured 40 others. On October 6, 2002, al-Nashiri's men bombed the French tanker MV Limburg, killing a Bulgarian sailor and spilling 90,000 barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Aden; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a key 9/11 organizer, studied with hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah in Hamburg, Germany. While he tried and failed to join his comrades after they moved to America, he was a liaison between al-Qaeda leaders and Atta, and provided several hijackers funds and travel arrangements. When arrested in Karachi, Pakistan in September 2002, bin al-Shibh already had recruited four new hijackers to smack jets into London's Heathrow Airport; and Hambali, the Muslim fanatic who slaughtered 202 innocent vacationers in two Bali nightclubs; Iyman Faris, convicted of plotting to cut the Brooklyn Bridge's cables with torches so it would tumble into the East River.

There were a few others he mentioned, but I'll leave it at that. The point is, waterboarding is an effective strategy. I am perfectly "ok" with terrorists experiencing something United States Navy Seals go through. I'm not going to get all misty-eyed if a few finger nails are ripped off to save American lives, but that's not the case. We're not ripping off finger nails. We're playing loud music and dripping water down their noses.
K0N

Con

Waterboarding is an effective strategy for gaining information. But is the said information real facts or a lie concocted by the terrorists to get you to stop torturing them?

Waterboarding is not in fact just dripping water down somebodys nose and playing music...

Wikipedia's definition of waterboarding is this:
"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure."
-------------------------
Though in some cases torture has been known to work... the majority of information gained from torture has not been found true...
Debate Round No. 1
ReaganConservative

Pro

"Though in some cases torture has been known to work"
-Thank you for conceding.

"Wikipedia's definition of waterboarding is this:"
-Can we please leave Wikipedia out of this discussion for the sake of credibility? Thanks.

"the majority of information gained from torture has not been found true..."
-I see no effort to prove my display of events incorrect.

In fact, it will be quite the challenge to succeed in proving my information incorrect. The fact of the matter is, by waterboarding Zubaydah, we were able to prevent a number of future attacks, possibly dozens.

"But is the said information real facts or a lie concocted by the terrorists to get you to stop torturing them?"
-Well since the information Zubaydah provided aided in the prevention of future terrorist attacks, I think we know our answer.

Zubaydah admitted that Allah had visited him in his cell and instructed him to cooperate. Given these men are deeply faithful to Islam, I'm willing to put money down that he wouldn't lie in the name of Allah.
K0N

Con

"Can we please leave Wikipedia out of this discussion for the sake of credibility? Thanks."

Sure thing. Dictionary.com gives the exact same definition so I am still going to use that as my idea of what waterboarding is... this is not just dripping water down peoples noses... this is drowning a person, then saving them again and again until they give an answer...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A much more useful approach to gaining information is a rewards program that gives the prisoner more and more freedom the more they tell...
The goverment gives them an agent to befriend who coaxes information from them...

Under "Mental and Physical effects of waterboarding" on Dictionary.com it says that "that the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends". Abu Zadaydah may have been driven crazy from the waterboarding, causing him to tell the truth...
or lies...
Some of the information he said lacks verity...
This article from MSNBC( http://www.msnbc.msn.com... ) sums it up pretty well...
This technique can damage the person mentally for the rest of their lives...
which in the case of their potential release could mean more criminal activity from them at worse degrees of violence...
Debate Round No. 2
ReaganConservative

Pro

So, you're using MSNBC to support your position against torture. I should just use Rush Limbaugh to support my position then, huh? You're under the delusion that Zubaydah was waterboarded numerous times. He wasn't. He was waterboarded ONCE and he broke within 30 seconds.

"A much more useful approach to gaining information is a rewards program that gives the prisoner more and more freedom the more they tell..."

-Why don't I use your argument and say, what if they aren't telling the truth? Are you going to reward a terrorist for lying? This is ludicrous. You want to reward terrorists for providing information that will save American lives. Wow, I guess times really have changed.

And about the "psychological" nonsense. I'm so sorry that you've grown emotionally attached to terrorists, that you're so worried about their mental well-being and completely excuse the fact that they wouldn't think twice about disemboweling a small child. I guess you and I have different opinions.

The article you posted, even though it's MSNBC, still confirms that some of the information was accurate, however, I'm not going to give in just like that to MSNBC. The information he provided concerning possible future attacks on banks or financial institutions was accurate. The information he provided concerning al Qaeda's interest in constructing a "dirty bomb" was accurate, although it didn't exactly match with U.S. intelligence, it's still relevant. This article doesn't cover everything Zubaydah admitted. It covers a few things that some people are skeptical about. You have yet to prove the rest of the information wrong, but the fact of the matter is, you can't, because it's already been proven to prevent possible attacks.

I'm willing to accept half credible information given up by a terrorist because that half bit that is accurate can still save American lives. You, on the other hand, want to reward terrorists for "being good" and doing what they're told.

Oh and about the whole "dripping water down the nose" deal. Of course I know it's more than that. I was providing a euphemism. I still believe terrorists would prefer "simulated drowning" over having their finger and toe nails ripped off, their tongue cut out, or have their genitals hacked off, wouldn't you agree?
K0N

Con

"So, you're using MSNBC to support your position against torture. I should just use Rush Limbaugh to support my position then, huh? You're under the delusion that Zubaydah was waterboarded numerous times. He wasn't. He was waterboarded ONCE and he broke within 30 seconds."

If Allah told him to cooperate in his cell why didn't Zubaydah just tell them the information instead of getting waterboarded? The people of Islam are very religious and would not dare disobey Allah...

"And about the "psychological" nonsense. I'm so sorry that you've grown emotionally attached to terrorists, that you're so worried about their mental well-being and completely excuse the fact that they wouldn't think twice about disemboweling a small child. I guess you and I have different opinions."

Yes I guess we do have different opinions or we wouldn't be debating. Were do you get your information from? Disembowling a small child? Please.

Instead of ranting about the horrible acts of the terrorists please start debating...
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
"Can we please leave Wikipedia out of this discussion for the sake of credibility?"

Actually, Wikipedia is very accurate, and according to one study, is about a accurate as Encyclopaedia Britannica. It should be a reasonable source. Also, admins of the site check for statements without sources and inaccuracies.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
classic liberals...they run away when we get down to the truth of things.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
what does that have to do with anything? why dont you respond my to question and statements and not be such a wuss?
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Shwayze, you have remarkable copy-pasting skills. Having information about terrorists (or POSSIBLY being linked to a terrorist) does not make you a terrorist.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
linsday: "Let's all remember that the enemy is not Iraq. The civilians there are brothers and sisters of ours, and part of the human-race. We need to embrace them, help them, not torture and kill them. The enemy is Al Qaeda. And bombing Iraq, and torturing Iraqis, will NEVER end the "war on terror."

You're saying that we are torturing iraqi civilians? Please provide some support for this ridiculous statement.

You also say the civilians in Iraq are our brothers and sisters, and part of the human race, and that we should "embrace them, help them." Isn't that what we are doing? Saddam was the one torturing and killing his own people. He oppressed, gased, and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people at will.

The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is very clear. They ran terrorist camps all throughout Iraq and Saddam offered many of their top leaders asylum in Iraq, including Osama bin Laden in 1999. THE ENEMY ARE THE TERRORIST INSIDE IRAQ.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
I'd far rather be called a "humanitarian" (good morals) than a terrorist who supports water-boarding. So in turn, thank you, all of you, who disagree with me, (I'm not at all being sarcastic, I'm being serious) I am flattered.
Posted by Bright 9 years ago
Bright
Lindsay: You brought up a good point. I did not site my source when I said that the terrorists have stated boldly and clearly that they desire to kill westerners. There were several such video recordings and letters that the news reported on for about a month. I wish I could site the exact source, but do not have it at my disposal. I know both Fox News and CNN reported on it several times.

Iraq is plagued with murderous insurgents from surrounding countries. It is these animals that are killing Iraqis, not us. American soldiers are excellent killers...but it is in their nature to kill BAD GUYS, and to protect the innocent. That's why this type of fighting is so hard on them...they take the time and care to assure minimal civilian casualties. The insurgents do not. They glory in indiscriminant slaughter.

Let's try common sense folks:
"When confronted with the assertion that the Soviet Union and the United States were moral equivalents, William F. Buckley responded that if one man pushes an old lady into an oncoming bus and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as men who push old ladies around. In other words, context matters... Many decent Americans understand that abuse intended to foil a murder plot is not the same as torturing political dissidents, religious minorities, and other prisoners of conscience. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not asked to renounce his faith or sign a false confession when he was reportedly waterboarded. His suffering wasn't intended as a form of punishment. The sole aim was to stop an ongoing murder conspiracy, which is what al Qaeda is. Andrew Sullivan complains that calling torture "aggressive interrogation techniques" doesn't make torture any better. Fair enough. But calling aggressive interrogation techniques "torture" when they're not doesn't make such techniques any worse
- Jonah Goldberg, "National Review"
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Well said shwayze, I agree with you 100%.

Lindsey noone is saying to use water boarding on any Iraqi civilians. The terrorists are killing them over there,. Today they used two retarded Iraqi women as a bomb. They strapped bombs to them and used them as suicide bombers. Terrorists torture Iraqi civilians and Iraqi civilians for the most part want them gone too.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
linsday: "Let's all remember that the enemy is not Iraq. The civilians there are brothers and sisters of ours, and part of the human-race. We need to embrace them, help them, not torture and kill them. The enemy is Al Qaeda. And bombing Iraq, and torturing Iraqis, will NEVER end the "war on terror."

You're saying that we are torturing iraqi civilians? Please provide some support for this ridiculous statement.

You also say the civilians in Iraq are our brothers and sisters, and part of the human race, and that we should "embrace them, help them." Isn't that what we are doing? Saddam was the one torturing and killing his own people. He oppressed, gased, and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people at will.

You sound like a "humanitarian" flaming lib.

The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is very clear. They ran terrorist camps all throughout Iraq and Saddam offered many of their top leaders asylum in Iraq, including Osama bin Laden in 1999. THE ENEMY ARE THE TERRORIST INSIDE IRAQ.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
The enemy is Al Qaeda.
Not Iraq.
And you would be considered far more credible if you had cited your source. I don't deny (this goes to you, too, Shwayze) that terrorists want to attack America. However, I would love to see (since you said, Bright, that "the terrorists have stated boldly and clearly") in quotations that the leaders of fundamental islamic groups desire to "kill every single Westerner they can get their hands on."

Now before everybody attacks what I just said, I'm not saying that terrorists DON'T want to attack America! I know they do, but to say such an outrageous quote as Bright has, needs a source to be credible.

Let's all remember that the enemy is not Iraq. The civilians there are brothers and sisters of ours, and part of the human-race. We need to embrace them, help them, not torture and kill them. The enemy is Al Qaeda. And bombing Iraq, and torturing Iraqis, will NEVER end the "war on terror."

Republicans and their stupid wars....the "war on terror" will NEVER end, the "war on drugs" will NEVER end...let's at least have a war we can WIN, and let's not decide for it to be against a country when that country has done NOTHING to us in the first place!
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Bright 9 years ago
Bright
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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 
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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 
Vote Placed by batman_is_dumb 9 years ago
batman_is_dumb
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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 
Vote Placed by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
ReaganConservativeK0NTied
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