CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

I'm going to treat this round as a summary and simultaneously argue my opponents last speech. Each point will offer a new reason to vote pro. 1. My opponents case is literally identical to mine and since he forfeited the definition debate, he has no benefits whatsoever. ---From CON Round 1 --- "My contention, then, is that we should not waste valuable time torturing Jim when we could be waterboarding him instead. Refer to my opponent's case about the benefits of waterboarding for warrants of waterbaording's effectiveness. " -This could have been treated as an independent argument to be made outside of his case, but he instead puts all of his eggs in one basket and mirrors my case as his own. Forfeiting the definition forfeited his case which in turn forfeited his benefits. At least by voting pro you have the chance at stopping the nuke whereas voting con presents no method whatsoever of preventing the nuke. This leaves me with the ultimate benefit of decreasing the chance of the nuclear explosion verses his absence of a case which offers no alternative. Therefore, even if you accept all of his last round arguments, you still vote pro. 2. His effectiveness arguments in round 3 are mislead and untrue. A. He agreed with my case and the warrants for its effectiveness. ---From CON Round 1 --- "Refer to my opponent's case about the benefits of waterboarding for warrants of waterbaording's effectiveness. " B. My effectiveness evidence outweighs his through real life examples. ---(Cross-Apply) PRO Round 1 Benefits ==================== -From: . http://science.howstuffworks.com...... - "When the CIA used the water-boarding technique on al-Qaida operative and supposed "9/11 mastermind" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he reportedly lasted more than two minutes before confessing to everything of which he was accused. Anonymous CIA sources report that Mohammed's interrogators were impressed. " -From: . http://patterico.com...... - "Not mentioned, anywhere in the article, is the fact that recently declassified memos confirm that waterboarding KSM was key to disrupting a plot to fly airplanes into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles. You might think that would be something that the biggest Los Angeles newspaper would care about. You'd be wrong. The closest the paper comes to telling readers this fact is to say that in a speech, Bush said that "alternative" interrogation methods had been crucial to getting Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, to talk. Not good enough. What does it mean to say that we got KSM to "talk"? It means that we got him to "disclose details of massive plots against the United States. " According to the intelligence community, waterboarding KSM saved thousands of lives. " -The KSM example shows that even the most dedicated terrorists can break and give reliable information. ==================== C. Waterboarding does not inflict permanent physical damage. Meaning that when the interrogators stop, the only thing that Jim would fear is being forced back into the same process or one that is worse. This offers a great incentive for reliable information to be given. Furthermore, seeing as technology provides quick response capabilities, quick information could be obtained to legitimize the validity of the information obtained. This hope provided, is substantially greater than the no other alternative provided by CON. 3. His only evidence that gives any weight to the unreliable information, is an opinion "letter to the editor" newspaper column. The man claims to be a retired CIA intelligence analyst, however it is this mans word against the threat of a nuclear explosion. 4. My opponents dropped case creates a new cost. Guaranteed nuclear explosion. He has no case (therefore no benefits), and he creates the ultimate cost. He can not win. Look, I applaud my opponents attempt to pull this round out from nothing. But every round he pulls his position in a new direction. He ought not be rewarded for this. He rarely addressed my arguments directly and therefore never showed why any of my arguments are wrong. In fact, he agreed with my case and agreed with my definition. There has yet to be an argument of mine that he has not agreed with. Simply enough, there is nothing he can say in Round 4 to award him the win. I do thank him for this debate and look forward to his final attempt to find a way to defeat me in his next round. Especially since he can't use new arguments. Good Luck, and thanks for the debate.