Waterboarding is a justified method of interrogation

Alright. The first point in this debate seems to be whether or not lives have been saved through the use of waterboarding. My opponent cited the CNSNews report, but that report simply cites the CIA. And, for the purposes of this particular debate, I would not consider the CIA a reliable source, because they have a vested interest in not being prosecuted for torturing people for no reason. Indeed, to quote the article itself, "A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here." Note the term, assertions. The CIA has apparently not actually shown the evidence for this to the news. The second point seems to be the issue of a ticking time-bomb scenario. There is one problem with a ticking-time bomb argument though. We cannot know that we need to get information about an attack unless WE ALREADY KNOW about the attack. If we already know about the attack, then what reason do we have to get information? Saying that it is acceptable to waterboard people on the suspicion that there could be an attack would mean that anyone could be waterboarded on the suspicion that they know about an attack. And that is definitely not justified. In response to this, my opponent said we already knew about the attack, but did not know important details. This is just wrong. We suspected another attack would be coming. The important details we did not know were where, when, by whom, and how. If we know none of these, how can we possibly know that an attack is coming? The third issue is confirmation of information. My opponents response to my argument that unless information gained by waterboarding is confirmed, we can never know whether or not it is true is simply that any source's information needs to be confirmed. This ignores the primary point of this argument. If we can get the information from other sources, we don't need to torture people to do it. The fourth issue is whether or not waterboarding is torture. My opponent has effectively conceded this, only saying "Well if it felt comfortable, then they wouldn't tell us anything, now would they?". So, he admits that it is torture. And finally, the issue of brutality. My opponents sole response is that the cycle of violence is non-unique, that it could be applied to any punishment. But he forgets, he already conceded that waterboarding not a punishment. As for internal punishments, the argument simply does not work. Do drug dealers or gangs recruit by saying "The man put me in jail, we need to get them back!"? No, not really. Do terrorists recruit by saying "Look at the horrific things the Americans have done to our countrymen! We must avenge them!" Yes, yes they do. The motivation behind crimes and terrorist attacks is different, and so using torture to combat terrorists simply breeds more terrorists. So, to sum up, the only possible ballot is a con one. I have shown that other methods and other sources can be (and indeed must be) used to gain the same information that would be provided by waterboarding. Ergo, waterboarding serves no purpose whatsoever. I have shown that using waterboarding to learn information about terrorists simply creates more terrorists. Overall, I have shown that waterboarding does nothing which could not be done through non-torture means, that any information gained through waterboarding must also be gained through non-torture means in order to have any validity, and I have shown that the use of waterboarding simply creates more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. It is brutal torture that serves no purpose, and promotes terrorism around the world.