"Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen.

Tournament Round 3 #36: "Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen. I wish good luck to my opponent… Observation 1: Intense- The most important word within the topic of debate is "Intense." Dictionary.com (American Heritage Dictionary) defines intense as, "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort." Observation 2: negotiations- The adjective of intense must be connected to negotiations which are defined as, "To deal or bargain with another or others, as in preparation of a treaty or contract or in preliminaries to a business deal." Observation 3: topic of debate (resolution) - Overall the topic asks us about making negotiations with terrorists. In other words, SHOULD we put forth "extreme efforts" in order to negotiate with terrorists? Obviously we should… -CONTENTION I: Harms of "Intense" negotiations. My first argument is that the harms caused by these negotiations are small. There is no way that the government would allow the terrorist to compromise to only benefit the terrorist and completely destroy us. The negotiations are a compromise between two entities that will allow for them to talk allowing for the most peaceful decision possible. In other words, there are no extra harms to negotiating and MANY benefits to negotiating. -CONTENTION II: Harms of terrorists. My second argument is simply the harms that can be provided by a terrorist. For that I ask you to look toward 9/11. This is the type of things that we are trying to prevent when we negotiate with terrorists. George W. Bush and company have said that they do not negotiate with terrorists. But that is simply ridiculous. Why wouldn't you try to "talk the enemy out of" doing something bad to your country. We must try to prevent these harms ANY way possible and "Intense" negotiations are the best way to do it. -CONTETNION III: Comparison of the two harms. When looking upon the resolution you must compare the two types of harms, "Intense" negotiations (PRO) or terrorism (CON). It's comparing compromises (or peace discussions) to such events as 9/11… it simply doesn't compare whatsoever. The harms are simply less on the PRO side. -CONTENTION IV: "Intense" negotiations cause less harm than other forms of preventing terrorism. As people (such as our current president) has stated, they do not negotiate with terrorists. BUT WHY NOT? By making compromises, you lessen the chance of having terrorist attacks on our nation. As my teacher always says, "Just ask, the worst thing that will happen is that I will say no." It's the same thing, if we ask the terrorists to be more peaceful, the worst they will do is say no. NOW, I ask you to take that, and compare it to other forms of preventing terrorism and that is waiting until after the fact. Such as 9/11, we waited for it to happen (and there were previous signals during the Clinton administration) AND THEN we initiated the War on Terror. This entire war could have been avoided if we would have invested in "Intense" negotiations. Even if the chance of stopping it with these negotiations is under 1%, it is still worth it when compared to risking war. However, I think that if we help the terrorists to get what they want, the chances then will inevitably increase OR AT LEAST the harms of their attacks will be mitigated to a lower level. After these 4 contentions, you must see that there are no down sides to "Intense" negotiations and therefore I urge you to vote PRO. I reserve the right to add and expand arguments in my next round. Thank you and good luck to my opponent!