Water boarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists

Thank you for and good luck with the conclusion of the debate: CONTENTION 1: Goes completely dropped in the last speech. He agreed with my definitions, but moreover, he agreed with my framework. It is therefore necessary that he complies with proving that the action of waterboarding just through ALL scopes of truth, reason, justice, and fairness. Failing one of these fails the definition of ‘just' and therefore urges a CON vote! Furthermore, flow through what waterboarding is. We are intentionally drowning these people. This is torture. America stands for something greater than this but yet my opponent calls it just with literally no warrants. -Group my opponents "case": -He shows no positive ground for waterboarding. My opponent tried to refute my mitigation points, but fails to offer any positive reasoning to why waterboarding is GUIDED by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. In other words, I showed why it is not guided... he said why it is not, NOT guided, but failed to show how it WAS guided... This alone urges a CON vote! CONTENTION 2: TRUTH A. Geneva Convention--> 1) FALSIFIED INFORMATION ---My opponent provided a quote from the Geneva Convention, but failed to finish the article where it specifically states, "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention." ---Now, we break both of these. Cross-apply the Murat Kunaz case where we failed to properly give him a trial, but nevertheless he was a "confirmed terrorist" AND he was innocent. Yet he was tortured for information that he did not have. 2) The Geneva Convention IS broken. ---QUOTE: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." B. Gaining information--> 1) Kant's Categorical Imperative. ---Look to the MEANS of this action, not the ends. Is the act of gaining this information just? The answer is no. Torture is never just, and that is where the debate is regardless of whether or not we gain this information. I contend that even the means of this are sure to get false information because the means are so cruel. 2) A Terrorist going back to their cell is better than preventing a non-existent attack. ---To be completely honest, when have all of these falsified tips, they add up to make it a waste of time and money for the fake ones, and uncertainty for the real ones. Do I advocate not interrogating them? No, I believe we need this information. But I just don't believe that it is just to make them feel like they are going to die to force information out of them regardless of whether it is real or not. Flow through to the end of this debate that research after research has shown the same thing... Torture does NOT obtain useful and credible information. They lie just to make it end and why shouldn't they to be honest? C. Terrorist ---My opponent gleefully argued that he is only talking about ‘ACTUAL terrorists.' I'm glad he brought this up because this is one of the big problem with terrorism. We vaguely categorize HUNDREDS of people into this category falsely. My opponent says we need to torture these horrible people, but by law, Murat Kurnaz was one of these people, but that doesn't mean he was one. It's like saying that people on death row should all be tortured, when in reality, they as WELL might be innocent. But as I have shown, the system to determine ‘terrorist' or ‘non-terrorist' is so bad, that to even approve the resolution puts innocent people in danger of being waterboarded AS WELL AS actual terrorists. So in essence, he says he will only torture terrorists, and I'm sure that's what people thought when they tortured the innocent. CONTENTION 3: REASON I would like to see my opponents magic wand that he uses to find out what a terrorist is. Because to be completely honest, terrorism defined is acts of terror that WE the United States ACTUALLY PERFORM OURSELVES. One such example IS waterboarding. Alright, so let's say we don't have a magic wand here, and we use pragmatism for a while. We find people D, E, U, W, and Z guilty of being ‘terrorists'. The proof presented is willing to say that only ONE of those people has ever done anything related to terrorism in their lives, but yet, by the definition of terrorist, it is OUR determination. This definition fits terrorist, but more importantly, fits this debate. THE UNITED STATES DECIDES IF YOU ARE A TERRORIST, NOT MY OPPONENTS MAGIC WAND! CONTENTION 4: JUSTICE 1) Yes, there is a problem with the justice system. The SAME justice system that decides whether you will be treated like dirt... or let go. Is this just? (not at all :) 2) "Terrorists have no rights"... HAHAHAHA -Just like the Jews? -Just like black people? -Just like people who put water down people's throats and repeatedly beat them in the stomach so that they inhale the water and ACTUALLY begin to drown? (oh wait) ---If anything, we have become the very thing we have been fighting for all of these years. The communists in Russia used these exact same methods. We condemned it then but now we do it ourselves. The terrorists torture the innocent. We condemned it, but now we do it ourselves. We are currently living under a double standard. Giving one entity due A, but giving ourselves the special, due B. This does NOT uphold justice, particularily when your mechinism for determining guilt is so vague and uncertain. CONTENTION 5: FAIRNESS He drops international tensions. Flow this through. It unfairly represents me. Because of this, waterboarding fails Truth, Reason, Justice, AND Fairness. He needs all these to be just but gets none! OVER AND OUT!