Waterboarding is a justified method of interrogation

"The first point in this debate seems to be whether or not lives have been saved through the use of waterboarding. My opponent cited the CNSNews report, but that report simply cites the CIA. And, for the purposes of this particular debate, I would not consider the CIA a reliable source, because they have a vested interest in not being prosecuted for torturing people for no reason. Indeed, to quote the article itself, "A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here." Note the term, assertions. The CIA has apparently not actually shown the evidence for this to the news." Lives HAVE been saved. Of course the CIA will not release all of the information, as interrogation is a classified operation. That is ridiculous to think they would tell us everything. They HAVE told us that because of waterboarding, American lives have been saved. "The second point seems to be the issue of a ticking time-bomb scenario. There is one problem with a ticking-time bomb argument though. We cannot know that we need to get information about an attack unless WE ALREADY KNOW about the attack. If we already know about the attack, then what reason do we have to get information? Saying that it is acceptable to waterboard people on the suspicion that there could be an attack would mean that anyone could be waterboarded on the suspicion that they know about an attack. And that is definitely not justified." You are missing the key point here. The terrorist TOLD US that there would be an attack. He said there would be an attack, but would not tell us where. What do you want to do? Put him in solitary confinement until he MIGHT crack someday later, or get that bastard to tell us when his buddies are going to kill our citizens? "The third issue is confirmation of information. My opponents response to my argument that unless information gained by waterboarding is confirmed, we can never know whether or not it is true is simply that any source's information needs to be confirmed. This ignores the primary point of this argument. If we can get the information from other sources, we don't need to torture people to do it." What do you want as confirmation? He told us that there would be an attack. Please read the article. "And finally, the issue of brutality. My opponents sole response is that the cycle of violence is non-unique, that it could be applied to any punishment. But he forgets, he already conceded that waterboarding not a punishment. As for internal punishments, the argument simply does not work." The same applies to interrogation. If it doesn't deprive them or hurt them, they don't say anything. That KILLS our citizens. "Do drug dealers or gangs recruit by saying "The man put me in jail, we need to get them back!"? No, not really. Do terrorists recruit by saying "Look at the horrific things the Americans have done to our countrymen! We must avenge them!" Yes, yes they do. The motivation behind crimes and terrorist attacks is different, and so using torture to combat terrorists simply breeds more terrorists." Once again, you are mistaken. The terrorists I have brought up (and most all of the middle-eastern ones for that matter) are radical Muslims. In case you didn't know, it is in their religion to kill all Christians (Americans). They have a "moral duty" to hunt us. So are we going to treat them nicely, and kindly ask them for the information on the next attack? No, the only way to get information is to make them give it to us, OR ELSE OUR CITIZENS DIE. " I have shown that other methods and other sources can be (and indeed must be) used to gain the same information that would be provided by waterboarding. Ergo, waterboarding serves no purpose whatsoever." You have shown nothing! Where in this debate have you offered an alternative? "I have shown that using waterboarding to learn information about terrorists simply creates more terrorists." Again, nope. I don't know how you are assuming this. Terrorists have a duty to kill/hurt us. We are completely justified in using self-defense techniques. "It is brutal torture that serves no purpose, and promotes terrorism around the world." Well, I just addressed your main points. Now hear mine, in which I will address your over-repetitive closing statement. --POINT 1-- Protection of citizens My opponent and I agree that the first duty of a government is to protect and serve its citizens. If the government fails to do this, they fail to uphold their duties. Therefore, the government must protect the citizens. --POINT 2-- Counter Plan As of now, there is none. My opponent has offered no other PROVEN method of interrogation. Therefore, we MUST protect the citizens using the available resources, however brutal they may be. Let us not forget our priorities here. We agreed that it is the FIRST duty to protect the citizens, NOT the terrorists who tried to kill our citizens. By logic, we must use waterboarding to maintain our priorities. "It is brutal torture" Yes, it has to be. Remember priorities here. "that serves no purpose" Well, except for protecting our citizens, as is our duty. "and promotes terrorism around the world." What?! Are you saying that by interrogating terrorists with waterboarding ENCOURAGES them to be terrorists, so that they might have the privilege of being waterboarded too? Think about rewards and punishments. If we wanted to promote terrorism, we would offer them money to kill us. If we wanted to deter terrorism, we would waterboard them so they would stop. Clear? Voters, please keep this final point in mind: WE MUST PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS IS BY WATERBOARDING TERRORISTS. ARE WE GOING TO PROTECT OUR OWN RIGHTS, OR THE "RIGHTS" OF THE VERY PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO TAKE OURS AWAY? US OR THEM. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. Therefore, I urge you to vote for safety of citizens, maintenance of duty, and above all, justice. Thank you.