Waterboarding is Good

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.