Water boarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists

Alright, so to start things off, I will agree with my opponents definitions. I will also concede his contention 1. I don't really see how this is a contention, rather than an observation, but oh well. I will first attack his case, and then move on to my own. HIS CONTENTION 2: WATERBOARDING, IS NOT TRUTHFUL He starts this off by stating that the Geneva Conventions say that a country can't water board because it is considered torture. It is true that this was stated. However, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION. Please read this following excerpt from the Geneva Conventions: "Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention. (GCIV Article 5)" This certainly frees the US from ANY hold the Conventions had on its water boarding terrorists. His point falls. His point B claims that water boarding gets inaccurate information. Well, what would my opponent suggest instead? Consider this situation: "Hey terrorist, tell us when the next attack is!" "Uh, no." "Oh, OK, just go back to your cell." Great, what did that accomplish? As my opponent described with such detail, water boarding can be very, well lets just say, encouraging for the truth. His point C is irrelevant to this debate. We are talking about TERRORISTS. Not "suspected terrorists," or any other term that is questionable. I will disregard this point. HIS CONTENTION 3: WATERBOARDING HAS NO REASONING He gives an example in this contention of how water boarding "provokes" terrorism. Please note also that this example was NOT of a terrorist, but of an innocent man. Again, this is irrelevant to the debate, and his point again falls. HIS CONTENTION 4: WATERBOARDING FAILS JUSTICE (defined as giving each their ‘due') In his point A, my opponent complains that since we don't try terrorists, they are not being given their due. The problems with this are twofold. One, that is a "problem" with the justice system, not its implementations. Second, "terrorists" HAVE NO RIGHTS. Under the rules of war, non-uniformed fighters inflicting terror on civilians HAVE NO RIGHTS. We cannot violate their rights, if they have none. My opponent will probably argue, "But they are humans! They DO have rights!" Well, they did. Then they murdered and robbed. Period. For his point B, he says that no one is due torture. Please refer to my last counter-argument to also refute this point. HIS CONTENTION 5: WATERBOARDING FAILS FAIRNESS Point A is again, irrelevant. Part 1 of point B has already been refuted, he is just repeating an argument. As for the second part, he gives no warrant. The Geneva convention? This has already been refuted. Now, it taking out my opponent's case, I have actually built up my own. He challenges me to show why water boarding is fair, just, etc. I have already done this by neutralizing his arguments. Water boarding IS truthful, reasonable, just, and fair. Now, according to my opponent's framework contention, I have won the debate for my proof of the above statement. Ending on that note, I urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://wikipedia.org... http://www.mcclatchydc.com...