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

It seems my opponent is sticking to his guns and so am I. I truly believe that waterboarding is torture. Thus this debate has come down to who wins the argument that waterboarding is/isn't torture. First I would like to go back to my opponents first round sources. One of which is wikipedia. This is where he got his definition in the first place. Well later in the article, the following quotes can be found: 1. "During his tenure as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2003-2004, Jack Goldsmith put a halt to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique because of serious concern over its legality, but Goldsmith's order was quickly reversed by others within the Bush administration" 2. "In May 2008 the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily underwent waterboarding and concluded that it was torture. He also noted that he has suffered ongoing psychological effects from the ordeal." 3. "On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it. In a press conference on April 30, President Obama also stated, "I believe waterboarding was torture, and it was a mistake" http://en.wikipedia.org... ---My opponent has failed to see that the reason the Justice Department classified waterboarding as legal was simply because of serious corruption in the Bush Administration. Now, however, under the Obama administration, you can expect prosectution for forcing someone to be waterboarded. The new administration's stance, including that of the Attorney General, outdates my opponents "definition". 4. Citizens have been prosecuted in the past for waterboarding. --- "In 1947, a Japanese soldier who used water boarding against a U.S. citizen during World War II was sentenced to 15 years in U.S. prison for committing a war crime." 5. Other U.S. offices labeled waterboarding illegal simultaneously with Bush's legalization. --- "The U.S. Department of Defense made it illegal for any member of the U.S. military to use the water-boarding technique. The CIA and its interrogators were unaffected by that new policy, as the CIA is not a branch of the U.S. military." http://science.howstuffworks.com... 6. The CIA and Bush may still recieve prosecution for their legalization of torture. --- "President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terrorism-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics." 7. The process of creating my opponents definition were done un-American and was not done in favor of the majority. --- "This administration did more than commit crimes. It waged war against the law itself. It transformed the Justice Department into a vehicle for voter suppression, and it also summarily dismissed the U.S. attorneys who attempted to investigate its wrongdoing. " http://www.harpers.org... Therefore, my opponents arguments 1-4 fall. QUOTE FROM HIS 5TH ARGUMENT: " the US government ought to have the final authority on these definitions." -->The final authority is that waterboarding is torture and that anyone who forcibly practices it will be prosecuted. Argument 6 he claimed that I cherry-picked my definition. Well I urge my opponent to cherry-pick a definition back since waterboarding applies to them all (10 of them!) Furthermore, higher authorities constitute waterboarding as torture. --- According to Article 7, Section 2, Part E of the Rome Statute (that governs the actions of the International Criminal Court), ""Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions" -----Therefore, in the case of the resolution, it is torture since no sanctions have been placed on Jim. Furthermore, I don't think that any argument can be placed on the severe pain portion of the definition since my argument that waterboarding is forced drowning went dropped (this shows that it isn't just simply simulated drowning.) ---Another International Law known as the Geneva Convention is also disreguarded while using waterboarding. In essence, there is consequence to using waterboarding because it is torture. Against his 7th argument, it really has no bearing. My definition really isn't that abusive ("the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.") Not to mention the fact that he KNEW he was getting into a debate where pro assumed waterboarding as torture! If anyone should be punished for this becoming a definition debate, it should be my opponent. I urge the judges to prefer the pro position for the following reasons, 1) The ONLY argument he attacked of mine is my definition of torture. 2) My interpretations, real life expiriences, and applications of why waterboarding is torture go unattacked (feel free to flow through my entire 2nd round since none of these point get attacked (except for the definition)). 3) He offers absolutely no direct reasons WHY waterboarding is not torture (look at his arguments, they are simply a definition and why he believes me to be wrong. He has no offense.) 4) Con accepted this debate and therefore should have accepted the implied terms. 5) He can not get any person who has undergone waterboarding to admit that it is not torture (I have countless pieces of evidence that show people trying to prove it's not torture by doing it themself. These people now agree with me that it is torture. I challenge my opponent to find a counter-example, EVEN if it is just 1.) Thanks