Water boarding is torture and should not be used by the U.S. and their allies.

You claim that by me admitting that waterboarding doesn't always necessarily lead to physical damage that it is a downfall in my argument. Firstly, if you just deal with absolutes, then you aren't going to get anywhere; if you yield no ground or if you let your opinion distort the evidence then I'm afraid you're blinding yourself and discontinuing any opinion just because you don't agree with it. Secondly, not all torture leads to physical harm and yet it is still torture. If someone is beaten up, they may not have any physical damage beyond bruises but it is still torture. You seem to constitute torture as being just a physical act whereas I've clearly shown that it is also as much a psychological matter as it is a physical one and similarly, the Geneva laws state that. It causes physical pain (which I will show you later, again) and psychological trauma with the people being waterboarded. Similarly with people being beaten up, some cannot think anything of it and some would be scarred but it is still torture, so I again state that by you making blanket statements you're weakening your position. And your example is flawed; driving's purpose isn't the same as waterboarding's and if you cannot understand that and you seriously put them on a level playing field then we're never going to see eye to eye. There is an obvious difference and I'd hope con wouldn't result to such examples which obviously mean nothing. They don't have the same purpose and one (waterboarding) is expressly there to cause pain, discomfort and trauma for information whereas the other is used for transport and for movement. There is no connection between the two in the sense con is alluding to and his example should be discounted. There are many cases of doctors saying it is likely for it to have negative effects on the body. An associate of medicine "Allan Keller" says: "During waterboarding, some of this water can flow through the nostrils and into the lungs, Keller explains. Water in the lungs, especially if it's dirty, can cause potentially deadly pneumonia or pleuritis, an inflammation of the lung lining" [s1]. Also, from that document you told me to read it clearly states that "Waterboarding is torture. It causes severe physical suffering in the form of reflexive choking, gagging, and the feeling of suffocation. It may cause severe pain in some cases. If uninterrupted, waterboarding will cause death by suffocation. It is also foreseeable that waterboarding, by producing an experience of drowning, will cause severe mental pain and suffering. The technique is a form of mock execution by suffocation with water. The process incapacitates the victim from drawing breath, and causes panic, distress, and terror of imminent death. Many victims of waterboarding suffer prolonged mental harm for years and even decades afterward" [s2]. Now, I'm sure we've already agreed that psychological suffering constitutes it being called torture and so by it having a likelihood of causing severe pain through the gagging and suffocation, and similarly through the psychological trauma it brings its victims, it is torture and shouldn't be allowed to happen. I put this to you; if a US soldier were waterboarded surely we would recognise it as torture (and rightly so) and think of it as wicked and disgusting? By what you're saying, the enemy can use waterboarding against our troops because it isn't harmful and doesn't cause pain; psychological or physical. I put to you then, con, that if you are seriously saying that it isn't harmful and it is a legitimate way to get information (and of course it isn't torture) then you must also accept then that if it is used by the enemy, it is just as acceptable. If con doesn't do this, then he is showing a bias which is detrimental to his position. And you said that waterboarding doesn't kill you, but it can. Beating people up doesn't necessarily kill then; most forms of torture you don't want them dead because you want the information they possess. Con seems confused in what he thinks torture's aim should be and thinks that killing them is successful torture which is clearly not the case. I have given you evidence that waterboarding causes you to feel like you're being smothered and for you to breath in water and how it can hurt your lungs and be painful. On top of this, I've also given you evidence of people who are familiar with it saying that it is psychologically damaging. If this isn't evidence to con then I don't know what will make him satisfied because that's that either of us can cite and my point still stands. Where did I say "waterboarding is worse than 9/11"? One is the killing of innocents and the other is torturing people; both are despicable and to pick a best or worse seems to be irrelevant; they're both still terrible in their own ways. The more tempting torture becomes to use in situations the more sceptical we should be about it; as soon as you allow some forms of torture and you start to let the law ebb away it becomes a slippery slope and does more harm than good in the long run. You seem very statistical and all about numbers, which is fine. However, the number of people who have died from waterboarding in history has been clear; the Japanese for example used it against US troops and some of the did die from it. Similarly there's controversy in that US personnel may have killed two people but it is still shady and unclear (which it's bound to be). Finally you mention that the information led to Osama's whereabouts. Even if this were true, why did it take them so long to find him if it was an effective form of torture? Surely it proves my point that for every lead they get, a hell of a lot of them must've been false because they'd tell them anything to make the ordeal stop. Even if waterboarding doesn't always cause severe pain, then psychologically it is damaging and exploitative and clearly goes against the Geneva laws I have stated. If con is not happy with it always being a physical form of torture then it is clearly a psychological form of torture which is prohibited by international law. If con denies this, then he must admit that it isn't damaging in any way to the individual which has proven to be the contrary. I hope con will look at all the evidence and not just dismiss the statements of doctors and other qualified personnel who know a lot better than con or myself about the subject and how in either a physical or a psychological manner (or both), that waterboarding is indeed torture. Source 1: http://www.scientificamerican.com... Source 2: http://www.hrw.org...