Waterboarding

"A good illustration of my thesis. .. " ---Yes, that's exactly what my case says. Dehumanization should NEVER be done. "It must be so because. .. " ---Alright, I'll agree with the 30 seconds part because from what I've read, that seems to be the case, and I know that personally, I'd surrender before they begin. But here's the thing - Since people put under those circumstances are reduced to a lower level on Maslow's Pyramid, that means they'll surrender: But not necessarily what the US Government wants. No, how torture works is - THEY'LL TELL YOU WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HEAR. You want to hear that the Easter Bunny was the reason for the Holocaust? They'll tell you that. You want to hear that Chuck Norris falling over was the reason for 9/11? They'll tell you that. They'll tell you ANYTHING you want to hear. They want out, and they'll do anything to get to it. (Drive-Reduction theory) Therefore, inaccurate information. "The technique of waterboarding. .. " ---So how close is this to "jumping out of a closet"? If it triggers the gag reflex, causes the thought of imminent death and induces the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in some people, how is it just a "scare tactic"? "It was used successfully. .. " ---That's fine, and also nonresponsive to my point. "In both cases. .. " ---No, there isn't. Refer to Drive-Reduction theory. If we want to hear that they have a million ways to terrorize the US, they'll tell us that. I'm pretty d@mned sure that your source didn't show a video of exactly what they did during that 'interrogation'? More likely than not, the 'interrogators' were using questions such as "Are you planning to attack the US? " "Imagine American law enforcement or military authorities have captured a terrorist mastermind. .. " ---Alright, here's one of the arguments I said I was going to make: HOW DO YOU KNOW HE'S A MASTERMIND? HOW DO YOU KNOW HE'S "THE ONE"? HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE EVEN IS A "ONE"? You've never specified ANYWHERE in your case how we know we're going to ONLY be using torture ONLY on terrorists, so even before you look at ANY of my dehumanization arguments, you'll first have to get past how you're going to NOT be using this torture technique, NOT A "SCARE TACTIC", on innocent people that are only 'suspects'. Since you HAVEN'T provided ANY way in which you solve for that problem, you already lose since waterboarding is going to be used on civilians who have not done anything wrong. AND EVEN THEN, EVEN IF he's a mastermind, even if we for some reason, maybe we're blessed by a higher power with this information or something, even if we KNOW that he's a mastermind, why does that mean we have to resort to crude and inhumane methods such as waterboarding? Just because they've done horrible crimes doesn't suddenly justify us in committing those horrible crimes the same way - the only difference is that we claim to be on the side of authority and justice, and that for some reason justifies the use of methods that we condone anyone else using. I don't believe that. I have more than just my opinions though: I have some warrants to support my claim. It's in my R1. "Should we force the prisoner to listen to Hillary Rodham Clinton speeches? " ---HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, I just had to give a line to this. "I don't think they would produce the needed results in time to defuse the bomb. " ---So uhh what's the time limit on this bomb thingy? This seems like a really arbitrarily set up situation to me. YESSS you finally got to my case. "Here's why waterboarding is not torture. .. " ---If I defeat his argument against my second prong, then my whole case as a syllogism still stands true, and THAT means that torture causes dehumanization and dehumanization is unjust, and does not value human worth and therefore it is unjust and therefore you NEGATE (Vote Con) So, here's my response. 1) Wow, I DIDN'T know that. My case says Waterboarding is torture and torture should not be used, period, so that means we shouldn't be using it on our own soldiers either. Doesn't affect the topic or my position in any way. 2) I never supported waterboarding use on America's best and brightest. 2B) I never said they were our best and brightest. 3) Straw Man Fallacy - If my case said "we should not use waterboarding on our worst enemies but we should use it on our own citizens", then sure, we affirm. But since I didn't mention that anywhere and I don't support the position you destroyed, it doesn't matter at all in terms of this debate. "My definition of torture is simple: It involves physical or mental abuse that leaves lasting scars. " ---I have several responses. 1) You could've did this in R1. This topic is on WATERBOARDING, and you KNOW FOR A FACT that one of the positions that oppose you are going to say that WATERBOARDING = TORTURE. But you chose not to. So we go with my definition. 2) Your definition is arbitrary. Mine is from the UN. 3) Waterboarding causes mental abuse that leaves lasting scars. Here's my evidence for it - . http://www.newyorker.com... - That source also supports my use of Drive-Reduction theory and Maslow's Pyramid. 4) It causes PTSD. . http://intelligence.senate.gov... So, we reject your definition of Torture because I've provided a better one, but EVEN IF we accept it, it still allows me to link directly into my case, therefore proving that waterboarding is torture. Basically, my opponent's main argument is that National Security and Saving Lives should be the highest value in this debate. My case, which he DIDN'T RESPOND TO AT ALL, says that Human Worth precedes both of those. Lives wouldn't matter if they weren't human, and national security is exactly the same: It's all based on the idea that humans are worth something. He has never responded to my argument that Human Worth is the basis of all morality and justice, and since in debate silence is consent, that means he agrees to that idea. His only argument then, is that saving American lives outweighs dehumanizing and torturing people that just want to terrorize people. I don't agree with this argument on several levels. First of all, the truth runs in the other direction; dehumanization outweighs death because dehumanization leads to more death: If you say it's justified to use dehume in X and Y instances, you're justifying the use of it everywhere, and WITH YOUR MINDSET, AND I QUOTE, "I think shoving a hose down there throat to save the lives of Americans and Iraqi's is laughably justifiable" We MIGHT AS WELL be killing them anyways, so the impact is nonunique. EVEN IF that's not true, that doesn't suddenly mean we are justified in using horrific methods to extract information from people. Refer to p2 of my response to "mastermind". EVEN IF that's not true, You can't be sure who's a terrorist and who isn't. We all know how poor quality our intelligence is. Refer to p1 of my response to "mastermind". EVEN IF that's not true, his use of waterboarding to "save lives" justifies the use of it everywhere as long as it gives the effect of saving lives. Cross apply my B2 point. EVEN IF that's not true, he's not valuing human worth at all, and he agreed that human worth is the basis of all morality and justice. If we're going to dehumanize for a rational reason that's as unstable as who's a terrorist and what protects national security, he can justifiably use it ANYWHERE and that doesn't protect the lives of Americans AT ALL.