Water boarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists

But let's finish this: First of all, I would like to pull through my interpretation of the framework. This not only goes dropped, but intentionally dropped. This means two things: 1) In order to be ‘just', the action must be guided by truth, reason, justice, AND fairness. Losing anyone of these loses the idea of what is just, and losses the round for my opponent. 2) Waterboarding is horrific activity that doesn't simulate drowning, it IS forced drowning of these "terrorists. " It is therefore without a doubt, torture. I will now go to voting issues, which happens to basically be the definition of ‘just'. Judges: If you accept any of these as not being upheld by the act of waterboarding, it is not just, and it therefore must be a CON vote! 1: Truth ---We have broken the Geneva Convention (dropped). -The United States has signed onto the Geneva Convention, but since waterboarding breaks this, we break the truth by breaking the promise of proper treatment of prisoners. My opponent said the Geneva Convention had an exception, however, as I have shown, this regarded simply to the right to remain silent, and in no way justified the use of cruel and unusual punishment (waterboarding) to get this information. ---Several terrorists are confirmed but yet are still innocent (dropped). -What you really need to take out of this debate is that the process for determining "guilt" for terrorists is extremely vague and inconclusive. But yet, my opponent suggests that we should essentially torture anyway. This is not ‘just' because it does not live up to what is true. ---(Information is false (dropped)) -Furthermore, these terrorists either A) Know nothing because they are innocent of any terroristic activities or B) Will say anything to get out of the torture. So when you look back to the resolution that asks if it is just to get this information out of terrorist, how can you call it just when the information received isn't reliable? (*proven from "several sources) This fails truth and therefore, fails to be capable of even coming close to being ‘just'. My opponent made his first argument as to why he upholds truth. And although this is too late and ought not be considered by the judges, it must be rebutted by simply this. If I promise you something, it does not guarantee truth. ‘I promise that I will kill you'. .. now, even if I comply to this, you will see that this does not uphold any sort of truth whatsoever. Finally, you will see that this ‘promise' we give to them is basically if you are a terrorist, you will be tortured. But to the point that our process of determining this is so weak and unreliable, you will find that we can't even keep this process fairly. 2: Reaon ---Since the terrorists can be innocent argument goes dropped, so does the only argument against the provoking of other terrorist activities. Therefore, the reasoning to do this act of waterboarding becomes moot. But moreover, because of the unreliable information, gives another reason that there is no reason to perform waterboarding. ---Also, my opponent said that we give them a chance. Although once again we may be asking them for information that they do not have. (I am an American but I do not have all information on the American army, AND I could very well be mistaken for a Canadian). 3: Justice ---My opponent claims that if I touch someone's nose, then I am due the death penalty. This is of course ridiculous. The point of that quote (actually quoted as: The right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins), is meant to limit your freedom to only risk what is yours, but do not risk other people's welfare. If anything, this is a reason to NOT to use waterboarding (again this is a new argument and really should not be accepted). There is another saying that says, "An eye for an eye will make the world go blind. " So let's look at this for a while. Terrorists do bad, we waterboard them. We did bad, so other countries get upset and attack us (which is actually happening by the way (provoke argument)). Those countries do bad, and now the whole world is blind (if you will). We must cap this evil, and it starts by recognizing waterboarding as FURTHERING terrorism and is therefore UNJUST. ---We do not give terrorists a proper trial (dropped). -How can we give people their appropriate due without an appropriate (or no) trial. This is ESSENTIAL for justice yet we give nothing. ---NO ONE is due torture. -We must end this evil. There is absolutely no justification for making someone feel hopeless. .. or like they are going to die. They are our enemy 4: Fairness ---Waterboarding decreases the quality of international tensions. (dropped) -This is completely unfair to me. My country is literally hated right now because of our immature actions (waterboarding). These tensions will increase the chances for war, and make NO deterence effect for when WE get caught by the enemy in the future. If I become a POW, if I were to be tortured, I don't want it to be because we did it to them, but I want to be able to say that YOU are the enemy, not that we did the same to you. ---By torturing the "terrorists", we provoke them to become terrorists (dropped) -When we say that 'you are a terrorist', it doesn't matter if they actual are because they have now fallen into the system. The problem is, you probably didn't have a problem with America going in, but you WILL getting out. This is why we must treat our prisoners as fellow humans, rather than pieces of dirt that aren't worthy of being on our shoes. In the end, the 4 REQUIRED pillars of being 'just' do not stand in any manner whatsoever. He needs ALL 4, he gets none. To leave you with this debate, I offer this statement. 'WE OUGHT TO BE FIGHTING TERRORISM, NOT CREATING IT! ' -Therefore, vote CON. Thank you for this debate!