Resolved that the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl was unjustified.

1) My point was misunderstood here. I am not saying that negotiation would be bad, but that this particular trade was. My main argument is that it incentivizes these groups to take people for ransom for America. What we know for sure is that if we make kidnapping desirable and profitable than these groups will be more likely to do it. We can debate whether that's good or bad later. 2) 1st of all, on this source i don't see the number of people who have been captured in the region. Also, your argument that it would be better to be captured than be die, whether correct or not, does not apply here. It is unlikely to assume that the number of casualties would go down because they would be getting captured instead. It is more likely that casualties wouldn't have a major change at all, while abductions would increase. I don't see any evidence that you laid out that would suggest that one would divert to the other. Even if you don't buy all that, abductions are arguably not better than other options because they drain the economy, gives the group assets in return, and there is always harsh punishment for the one captured. 3) We are debating the deal that went down here. We may have been able to do a justified trade earlier down the line. Plus, this debate can ponder whether that law in and of itself is justified or if their are circumstances, like Bergdahl, that need to be treated differently. (I hope I understood that question correctly) 4) I am unsure about my personal preference here. I guess I would be very situational. I would like to know what would happen to them afterwards and who it is effecting. 5) We must think about who were are leaving behind in the future. This is where the debate gets interesting. Especially because Bergdahl left his own group behind. Also, military people searched for days afterwards to return him. He left his camp to allegedly flee dangerous or unpleasant duty, putting his whole group, our whole military, and our economy (for the ransom) at risk. In this situation though, this particular deal was not favorable. I am not saying we should never get him back, but perhaps it would be less dire, he wasn't on military orders when he got captured. 6) The main thing I want to point out here is that if he get convicted by the US military now that he's home, he still won't be getting health benefits. In fact, this is stated right on the same evidence you sighted. This in no way justifies his return home since we aren't rushing in to help anyway. On top of that, this is what the deal will make more likely for others to endure, and America may not be able to pay a ransom every single time. 7/8) I don't have any evidence either way stating that he has any intelligence. Although its unlikely that they were leaking information to him the whole time and happily sent him back home with it to tell. Sadly, we aren't going to persuade them to get on the Democracy band wagon, and we are equally showing them the perfect money generating option. Also, sometime one life shouldn't be valued above several others, especially when that one life was doing it in the act of betraying the others. 9) I was not aware of this information. I would be curious to hear what processes were used and what he is diagnosed with now that he is back. Could I get your evidence. 10) I'm not sure I understand but I don't care who made the trade.