CBA Debate - The use of Torture in order to prevent Nuclear Detonation.

This debate is turning into a definitional argument. The original intention was to get PRO to defend a real torture technique instead of suggesting waterboarding as a proper example of torture. Instead, he has dedicated R2 answering the definition of torture. PRO did say: "I reserve the right to add benefits until at least round 3" Hopefully he will applies this and give some actual benefits of torture in R3 instead of just continuing this argumentation about waterboarding being torture. =================== Waterboarding is Not Torture =================== I defined torture in accordance with the United States Department of Justice, whereas his definition is from www.dictionary.com. You should prefer the U.S. definition for multiple reasons: 1. The scenario specifies the constraints on action of a US resident, Jack Bauer. Jack Bauer, being an American citizen and not a Dictionarydotcommian citizen is bound only by US rulings on torture, not those of dictionary.com. 2. The man who is to be tortured is in United States custody, thus what happens to him and what is allowed to happen to him is dictated by the United States, not by Dictionary.com, LLC.[1] 3. The action is to take place in Boston, which is located in the United States. This makes the United States definition the geographically most correct one because it is specified for dealing with the United States. Dictionary.com uses multiple dictionaries from around the globe and does not specify a particular country or dialect for which it is designed[1]. 4. The scenario in question deals with an issue of legality and therefore should use a legal definition (1) because Jack Bauer is a law enforcement officer[2], (2) because the resolution is a question of United States policy, and (3) because internet sources only hold ground in defining a term so long as they are popular, whereas legal definitions have the power of the government enforcing them, thus being the only ones that could actually command an action be taken. Using some internet site and then claiming fiat from this source's authority is nonsensical. 5. The United States Department of Justice's definition is not in direct contradiction to my opponent's definition, rather it is a specification of what is qualified to fall under that definition. There is not good reason to prefer PRO's particular interpretation over the Department of Justice's (1) because my opponent is far less qualified to discuss torture and (2) because of the 4 reasons given above, indicating that the US government ought to have the final authority on these definitions. 6. Dictionary.com has multiple acceptable interpretations (10 of them!) of the definition of the word 'torture'[3] from which my opponent can cherry-pick his favorite for defending his case, rather than choosing the most appropriate one. The US government only has one ruling on what constitutes torture, using my interpretation of torture guarantees a lack of abuse on the parts of the debaters. 7. My opponent provided his definition new in the second round, whereas mine was given in round 1. By not clarifying what torture (an integral part of the resolution) meant, he forfeited the right to me to define the terms of the debate. By not defining it, then contesting the definition that I give, he allows me to accept the debate under false premises of what we are debating. Had he given such a definition of torture in round 1, I very well might not have accepted this debate. For these reasons you prefer the US legal definition of torture, which precludes waterboarding, the central point of this case so far, thus he has met no burden of proof. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...