"Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen.

AS far as the tournament goes, here is my opponent's last speech… ------------------------------------------------ "there is a flaw in my opponents observations that i must point out. his definition of intense is not the same as the US uses when dealing with its actions with terrorists. dick cheeny, vice-president of the united states, has said that the US engages in "intense" interrogations, meaning that the US can use torture to get (negotiate) information out of a terrorist. the US government itself sees intense, not as "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort" as my opponent does, but as a means to subvert fundamental agreements on how to treat prisoners such as the geneva convention. which expressially prohibits the use of torture against said prisoners. because i am against such horrible acts, i am here to negate the resolution, "Intense" negotiations with terrorists should happen". i shall present my contentions in the following round (not enough time right now, only 16 minutes left). to rebut my opponents second point, that there is no reason to not negotiate with terrorists. this is untrue, negotiating with terrorists gives the terror group both credibility and power. lets say terror group hezbollah attacks a US base, and takes 3 soldiers captive. then it offers to "negotiate" with the US for their release. what will they try to get, they will try to get the US to stop supporting, or at least lessen support for, isreal. if the US were to agree, and to distance itself from isreal, then not only would hezbollah of gotten what it wanted, along with a newfound prestige and influence at home, but it would embolden other terror groups to do the same. terror groups such as hamas, or alqaeda. negotiation with terrorists mearly encourages others terror groups to follow in the footsteps of the one who we've negotiated with. i shall rebut my opponents other points in the next round, as debate.org has decided ive forfited with 10 minites left." ---------------------------------------------------------- In my opponent's last speech, he basically says that I'm abusive and doesn't meet the resolution and then goes on to argue it in his own interpretation. This, in and of itself, is abusive. Look to my definition of intense as defined as, "Involving or showing strain or extreme effort"… Instead of providing a counter-definition (which I don't think there is one that supports my opponent's point of view)… he just says that my PROFESSIONAL definition is abusive. My interpretation of the topic of debate is perfectly debatable and equal. I hear all these people say that they "don't negotiate with the enemy." Well… I think that is dumb. Since my definition is the only one in the round AND my opponents interpretation is one sided and against the United States and everything that America believes in, I believe that the only fair scope of the resolution is the one that I provide. Where he talked about the Hezbollah capturing the 3 people… I would say that America SHOULD then use "Intense" negotiations consisting of let them go or we bring your home up in flames. That seems like it fits the definition and would defiantly get the point across. America has more means of getting things done than some people believe that we do. There ARE other forms of arguing "Intense" than what my opponent says; but the most important thing that we do is NEGOTIATE. We must save our troops and whatever it takes SHOULD be done. Please flow through (basically) all of my case. He had ten minutes left but was obviously not able to cover all of my points in that time. Procrastination doesn't usually leave you enough time to cover what you want ;) This also means that point I, II, and IV are flowed through which means that my harms of negotiations and terrorists still stand AND that my interpretation of the topic of debate is accepted and fair (IV)… People always say that they don't want to "negotiate with the enemy"… and I think that should change. In the end, I challenge my opponent to define "Intense" in order to support his P.O.V. If he can't provide it by next round, my definition MUST be accepted. Thanks