17. In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

I will go right down the flow and wrap up with why I win. First off, my opponent simply reiterates what his R1 argument was. You can cross-apply my whole R1 argument, as he still did not respond to it. As I have stated, no matter what the outcome is, no matter how better life is, no matter how many people are saved, it is STILL not justified to kill or torture a person. Those things violate human rights. He says that terrorists aren't US citizens, thus they should not receive the same rights as we do. I find that completely unjustified. PRO is viewing terrorists as sub-human, people that do not have any rights. It was Yasser Arafat that said "For whoever stands by a just cause and fights for freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists, cannot possibly be called terrorists." In other words, a terrorist is only in the eyes of the beholder. To sum it up, like any other person, to torture or kill any person is unjustified. They have human rights, just like every other person. My opponent, I think, misinterprets my example. He says this: "In this example it was a person with known ties to terrorists, but a different person with known ties to terrorists was arrested." However, the examples I showed we're innocent people. The only reason they were tortured is their middle-eastern background/name. They had no ties to terrorists whatsoever. Now those people are scared forever because they were tortured for something they didn't do. Then PRO goes on to say that torturing a few innocent people would be okay because it helps the greater good. I can tell my opponent has never been tortured. To torture or kill a person, as I have said many times, is one of the ultimate crimes against humanity. Now think of an innocent person that is tortured. They have done nothing wrong, and now they are dead or scarred for life. And for what? To kill some more people, so they won't kill more people? This just shows how false this resolution is. It is COMPLETELY contradictory, because you are killing people to stop killing. Also, it's no different if I went out and shot someone. They are completely innocent and now dead. My opponent has shown no difference and only supported this idea. The reason I said it could only lead to more terrorism and prolonged war is two-fold: 1. The reason there are 'terrorists' is because they hate a cause, person, or country, usually because it is hurting them. Now think if a family member was tortured or killed innocently. You would want revenge. Therefore, you could very well become a 'terrorist' also, and try to take the 'killer' down. 2. As with the case of El-Masri, people that are being tortured give false information. Thus, armies think they have leads, but they're actually false. That leads to a longer war. Next my opponent states this (I will copy-paste, word for word): "The resolution states "for military intelligence". This is matters pertaining to overseas and people who are not citizens of the United States. This paragraph is referring to internal affairs and does not fall within the resolution so should not be a voting factor for the judges. All this paragraph is trying to do is gain sympathy with no real ties to the resolution." ??? Okay, let's look at the resolution for a moment. "In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means." That's it. First of all, where in there does it even mention the United States of America? Second, where in the ENTIRE resolution does it say that it has to be international (overseas) affairs? I don't even get this argument. My opponent must have got too much into the mindset of the previous example about terrorism. I see absolutely no reason why this argument doesn't apply. The Patriot Act (wiretapping) is used to gain knowledge (intelligence) about suspected terrorist. This resolution is perfectly okay for this resolution. (I think it's just too good of an example that my opponent couldn't think of a way to counter it ;] ) What's more: this deals with terrorism, the very thing we were debating about earlier. If this doesn't apply, neither does his whole previous argument about consequentialism. So please cross-apply my wire-tapping argument, as it still stands. Next we go onto the scientists. He says: "military intelligence is to infer knowledge to help with military matters, generally to the next step in an on comming battle/ war." Therefore, it does not meet the resolution. This again makes no sense. Intelligence is defined as "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations." The resolution says 'collecting military intelligence', meaning gaining knowledge about things related to the military. Building a bomb to win a war is definitely related to the military. I even meet HIS definition. The next, and last, step in World War II was building a nuclear bomb. Why can't building a bomb be the next step in a war? Then, well, I just can't understand why he would say this: "This example kills millions to save the few." Therefore, it does not meet the parameters of the debate. That's EXACTLY why the resolution is wrong. He pretty much concedes this debate. The proverbial military needs knowledge on how to build a bomb, so they blackmail the scientists (means). The scientists obviously want to live, so they build it. Now millions are dead (ends). In that situation, as my opponent concedes, ends don't justify the means, because the ends result as millions more dead than the means. THAT'S why his consequentialist viewpoint, and this resolution, are wrong. Here is why I win this debate round: To kill someone is the ultimate crime against humanity. It doesn't matter the circumstances, or what will be the result, you're still committing the greatest crime imaginable. This resolution discusses whether or not this is justified to have a certain result. Throughout this round, my opponent assumes the resolution if it is BETTER to torture or kill one person to save many. But that is not the resolution. It is justification. At that point, PRO loses this debate, because no where in this debate did he discuss why killing can be rationalized. I also win the examples debate. If I can prove one instance why the resolution is wrong, I win. Luckily, I did this twice. He had no answer for my wiretapping argument, and pretty much agreed with me on the proverbial scientist bomb example. At THIS point, PRO loses, CON wins. Thank you to the judges for taking time to judge this debate and thanks to Jokerdude for an excellent debate.