Water Boarding is indeed torture.

I'm going to address the main issues of this debate, and why I believe that they indicate a Con vote. "THE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO SIMULATE DROWNING TO A PERSON TIED AND BOUND TO A TABLE" I agree completely. The sole purpose is to SIMULATE drowning. There is no alterior motive - it is merely a scare tactic in which they try to freak you out. It does NOT leave any permanent or long lasting damage on a person. Now lets look to my opponents claims. "INITIATING A FIGHT-OR-FLIGHT RESPONSE, RAISING THE HEART RATE AND RESPIRATORY RATE" This sounds bad, but in reality, is similar to the reaction to a cup of coffee: caffeine raises heart and respiratory rate, and can cause irritability (which is connected to Fight or Flight). This still coincides with my main point that to reasonably constitute torture, there must be some damage done or severe pain (not discomfort) inflicted. My opponent has yet to prove this. "BECAUSE THE U. S. MILITARY DOES NOT USE THIS TORTURE MEATHOD ANYMORE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE USED ON THEM ANYMORE EITHER" . http://blogcritics.org... Actually, you're factually mistaken - we still do do this practice. Why? Its not torture. We do it to our soldiers. If this were a terrible torture and did long lasting damage to people, what does that say about our troops? Are they all in the fetal position while fighting? Its almost satirical to imply that there is ANY damage from waterboarding, because its being done to our own soldiers! By US! ! Its an insult to our troops to think that Waterboarding is torture. Lets look at a summary of the facts: 1) Waterboarding is used on our own soldiers: Lets put what my opponent claims waterboarding is in perspective. To constitute torture, my opponent says that it MUST leave a long lasting psychological and physical impact, and inflict severe pain. Now, if you're the US government, and you know that this war is not very popular, and you risk desertion as it is, I ask you: Why OH Why would you piss your soldiers off? Even worse, why would you emotionally and physically cripple them? To agree with my opponent is to say that every single person defending our country in Iraq is emotionally and physically crippled, and that (despite high likelihood of desertion) they're putting them under an even HIGHER risk of desertion. Judges, I don't think this makes any sense at all. It is for this reason that you should vote Con. 2) Waterboarding couldn't be used any more when terrorists realized there was no more danger. This is the funny - and I mean funnny - thing. The people who we're supposed to be using waterboarding on actually laugh the treatment off. When they realized that they were in NO REAL DANGER (which my opponent and I agree on, see his opening statement quoted in this speech) they began sitting through the process and letting it just happen. This is why the US government stopped using it in 2003 after it got media coverage and they explained that the proceedure was *harmless*. My opponent provides no alternative explanation for why we miraculously stopped using it, *coincidentally* at the exact same time that the media began covering it. Pretty unusual, if you're my opponent. .. .fits perfectly, for the Con. Judges, to conclude, waterboarding is by no stretch of the mind torture. I've already admitted that its uncomfortable, probably scary, and I bet its an experience that doesn't leave you quickly. But the answer remains simply: Waterboarding is NOT torture. We do it to our soldiers. We CANT do it anymore to terrorists. These conclusions provide a pretty sticky situation for the Pro to get out of. The reason is because there IS NO reasonable explanation for why all of these things would coincidentally fall into place all at the same time. For these reasons, please vote Con. Thank you.