Waterboarding is Good

Framework: My opponent forgets that the burden of proof rests on the Pro. It is not the Con's job to provide an alternative to waterboarding, but rather to merely disprove the Pro's contentions. The burden of proof of the Pro is to prove that waterboarding is good; not that it is better than alternatives, which is not part of the resolution and thus is unrelated to the debate. Judges should make the distinction between waterboarding being good and waterboarding being better than other forms of torture; this round will not deal with the latter, only the former. I will now respond to my opponent's case. ------- Contention 1: Waterboarding is not torture It seems odd that if waterboarding really is not torture, my opponent should even feel the need to bring this defensive point up in this debate. His contention is riddled with fallacies. I have broken it down into three sections to better organize his ideas. 1A: No intent to harm/waterboarding is not torture "First of all, waterboarding is not intended to "inflict severe physical or mental suffering" as stated in provision 1; the point of an enhanced interrogation method like waterboarding is to gain valuable information, not maliciously to inflict pain." Whilst the point of waterboarding is to gain valuable information, my opponent is wrong that there is no intent to maliciously inflict pain. The basic purpose of waterboarding is to "maliciously inflict pain" in order to attain this "valuable information". John McCain describes in the November 28, 2007 Presidential Debate his astonishment towards those who believe waterboarding is not torture. "Then I am astonished that you would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture… We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me..." [1] Then my opponent states: "The subject may certainly feel some discomfort, but "some discomfort" is nothing close to "severe suffering."" Has my opponent ever been waterboarded? The definitions that I provide (which he accepts) explains how waterboarding is intended to produce a "severe gag reflex, to simulate drowning." Bob Barr, former US House Representative (R-GA) describes waterboarding as causing "excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim's lungs fill with water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer's best friend- easy, quick, and nonevidentiary." [1] It's clear that waterboarding is torture, but for argumentation's sake, let's assume my opponent is right and that waterboarding does not inflict pain. If it does not inflict pain, then the prisoner/victim will have no incentive to disclose information; the reason they disclose is to make the pain stop. No pain, no disclosure. My opponent loses this contention whether waterboarding is painful or not. 1B: Intent is not to torture. "Agents who employ the use of waterboarding do so with the intention of ultimately producing valuable intelligence, not unnecessary pain and suffering. Logically, what incentive would agents have to inflict immense suffering anyway?" False; the purpose of waterboarding is to extract information by torturing said prisoner. The logic is that the prisoner/victim will disclose any information in his or her possession in order to end the torture. Surely, if inflicting pain was not the goal, an interrogation in order to ask for that valuable information would suffice. However, the goal is to inflict pain, because the logic behind waterboarding is that only be inflicting pain will the victim reveal his possessed information. 1C: Waterboarding mains prisoner mentally, making it illogical to practice waterboarding "Once again, if the subject endured severe suffering and prolonged mental harm was caused, the subject would not be mentally fit to withstand an interrogation" My opponent's statement is actually a reason not to use waterboarding. Researchers have found that the mental effects of waterboarding are actually "destroying the very memories they're supposed to recover. Shane O'Mara, a stress researcher at Ireland's Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience. "These techniques cause severe, repeated and prolonged stress, which compromises brain tissue supporting memory and executive function." [4] This contention is entirely a fallacy and is incorrect. ------- Contention 2: Waterboarding is beneficial "I have previously mentioned, the objective of waterboarding is for the United States to obtain information which couldn't be gained any other way." It is the BOP of the Pro to show that other methods don't work. Waterboarding has only been used by the United States on three individuals in the past decade. [2] In regards to the information obtained from those three interrogations, it is unanimously agreed that information obtained from these situations didn't even prevent any imminent attacks – interrogation techniques would have obtained the same answers. John McCain disproves my opponent's point as well, during the November 2007 Presidential debate, when he explains the following: "Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else." [1] -------- Contention 3: Waterboarding is quick and efficient I have four observations: 1) Rape is very quick and efficient. You could spend weeks, months, maybe more trying to seduce "the one", but really, rape just cuts to the chase. Let's just use that instead. 2) My opponent states that waterboarding "broke [the] suspect after 35 seconds' Abu Zabaida was waterboarded for a total of 35 seconds, and after the experience, instantly revealed everything." This statement is contradictory to the claim my opponent makes earlier in Contention 1, where he states that torture will make prisoners less inclined to divulge information. Since we have already established that waterboarding is torture, and now that my opponent has proven that this torture method has worked in the past, we can conclude that waterboarding is a torture method where pain is purposefully used with the intent of discovering information. 3) "Rather than spending months interrogating a suspect, waterboarding is quick and efficient." By making this statement, the Pro concedes that interrogation techniques will also achieve the desired outcome of waterboarding, except by taking more time. My opponent in this statement tells us that by investing more time in interrogations, we will no longer need to torture our prisoners and he has thus proven that waterboarding is not necessary. 4) Waterboarding is actually very inefficient. My opponent is right that it took 35 seconds to "break" Abu Zubayadah (Zabaida) – but that was on the 83rd try. "We now know that CIA torturers waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed precisely 183 times and Abu Zubaydah [Zabadia] 83 times. That comes to 266 times in all." ----- Because waterboarding is a form of torture, is not as beneficial as my opponent claims, and is not efficient, I strongly urge a CON vote. Citations: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...