A difficult debate

[Twilight]

I'm facing a bit of a dilemma - I'm in the school debating team and I usually quite enjoy it because they give us interesting topics that can be argued from both sides with relative ease once you really think about them.

 

However, this time they decided to give us the topic "That We support the measures used at Guantanamo Bay". Abiding by Murphy's Law, we got the honour of having to affirm the moot.

 

Thus, this is my lowly plea for help... anyone have any ideas?

[uncool]

Well, first, decide what is meant by the "measures used at Guantanamo Bay"

Second, decide what is easiest to defend, and what you can throw away.

Third, find ways to separate the two groups.

Fourth, find ways to defend the first group while condemning the second.

-Uncool-

[atinymonkey]

Abiding by Murphy's Law, we got the honour of having to affirm the moot.

 

Do the what to the who now? Are you pro or con?

[YT2095]

I`de gather from his disgruntlement he`s prolly on the Pro side of the arg

[Douglas]

Does anyone know the measures used at Guantanamo Bay? There's been plenty of alleged measures.

[ydoaPs]

koran flushed down the toilet or not.

[j_p]

I'm facing a bit of a dilemma - I'm in the school debating team and I usually quite enjoy it because they give us interesting topics that can be argued from both sides with relative ease once you really think about them.

If school were easy' date=' you wouldn't be learning anything.

 

OK, there must be some stipulated "measures" you have to defend, right? Otherwise the other side can use any irresponsible undocumented stories they can dig up on the web.

 

First, you have to try the "greater good" [which will promptly be shot down with the argument that acceeded to abusive acts by a government is bad for the people'].

 

Second, you have to argue that the "measures" are not so bad because detainees are not being killed and crippled. At least, not deliberately. All that often.

 

I am not being much help here, am I?

 

What is the best way to undercut an argument? Agree with it, and then diminish its importance [i can not believe I am giving an impressionable child this advice].

 

So, what measure are being taken?

People are being detained in circumstances which could not be better designed to elicit the latent sadism in any one.

Well, that's a stumper.

 

Sigh. [Just how did you piss off God in your last life?]

[Twilight]

Well, to clear up a few issues - we're affirming the motion, I'm a female, and j_p, if you call me an impressionable child again.... ... I'm almost 17....

 

I was thinking about it this morning. I could only come up with a few things.

 

Firstly is the fact that you have to make a comparison between what they do to terrorists held there, and what the terrorist groups those terrorsists belong to actually do. Alright, fine - say prisoners at GB are being sleep-deprived. This - although unpleasant, often leads to them divluging required information. What the terrorist groups would do was a lot worse - they would put them in cages and drop concentrated nitric acid randomly every 5 minutes through the top bars so that the prisoner would have to keep moving around, resulting in sleep deprivation. In one case, it's used as a measure to extract information. In the other, it's pure sadism. I'm aware of the fact that this argument is insubstantially weak, but meh...

 

Second - is there any actual evidence that the atrocious stories are as common as they're portrayed to be, or is this another case of media hyperbole that's lost its grounding and been blown out of proportion? Are we talking widespread torture here or is it just a few isolated incidents? Because if it's the latter (there's gotta be something out there to justify it. There always is, these days), then we can state that we support the measures used at GB because in reality, their basis is similar to that of most other terrorist-prisoner facility.

 

It all comes back to the issue of whether the means justifies the end.... at least the moot wasn't "That we support the measures used at Abu Ghraib"....

[j_p]

Well' date=' to clear up a few issues - we're affirming the motion, I'm a [i']female[/i], and j_p, if you call me an impressionable child again.... ... I'm almost 17....

Oh, honey, that is so funny ...

 

[i am assuming you're not really offended; at 17, you must have a strong enough sense of self-worth to handle a little teasing. I will make up for it with ideas on how your arguments will be refuted.]

 

Firstly is the fact that you have to make a comparison between what they do to terrorists held there, and what the terrorist groups those terrorsists belong to actually do.

So much is being alleged about what the US military do and terrorists have done that you will have to be very careful with your sources.

 

Furthermore, most of the outrage about the facility is that people are being detained there with little or no evidence they were members of a terrorist group.

 

Also, there are accustations that groups are being designated as terrorist on inadequate evidence.

 

... sleep deprivation. In one case, it's used as a measure to extract information. In the other, it's pure sadism.

Torture used by the military to extract information has the added evil of developing latent sadism in people who carry large guns and know how to use them.

 

But the argument that sleep-deprivation is not really torture could get past your fellow students.

 

Second - is there any actual evidence that the atrocious stories are as common as they're portrayed to be...

Does it matter? Is immorality quantitative or qualitative?

 

there's gotta be something out there to justify it. There always is, these days ...

There was lots of serious discussion of the use of torture in the US after the Towers were blown up. I don't remember any of the arguments off-hand. I'll see if I can find some.

 

"That we support the measures used at Abu Ghraib"....

Are you certain the "measures" are not as bad, or even worse?

[Skye]

Torture used by the military to extract information has the added evil of developing latent sadism in people who carry large guns and know how to use them.

AFAIK, most militaries don't allow combat troops to be taught interrogation techniques.

 

 

As for the original question, you'll have to use moral relativism I suppose. It is better for some to lose their freedom than for others to lose their lives.

[j_p]

To make amends, I have googled for you; I read the jingoistic hysterical rantings of hundreds of fools and charlatans to glean the following:

 

This page refers to other articles you could read.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/tort-j30_prn.shtml

 

Here's a defense of torture

http://robert.williamsonline.us/archives/000296.html

 

This one doesn't really make any arguments

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4838

 

Ah, found it; I haven't really read this, but it is presented as an argument, so it should help:

http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~fha0/Torture.doc.

The google html link is:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:nk2c57h_u1MJ:www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~fha0/Torture.doc+defense+of+torture++%22defense+of+torture%22&hl=en

 

Nothing really new here in my opinion, but you might find something

http://zwichenzug.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_zwichenzug_archive.html

 

A little back-ground, politcal discussions

http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2005/01/torture/

http://www.themoderntribune.com/gonzalez_bush_u_s_policy_on_torture.htm

 

Maybe you can find a copy of ''Torture: A Collection,'' edited by Sanford Levinson, a professor of government at the University of Texas

 

Here's an example of what you will be arguing against.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3745/is_200307/ai_n9301308

 

Hope these help. Tell yourself that you can not oppose something unless you understand the arguments in favor of it.

[j_p]

AFAIK' date=' most militaries don't allow combat troops to be taught interrogation techniques.

 

[/quote']

 

But they can be encouraged to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation ...

[ioana]

hey, i'm in the same debating team as twilight and in case anyone was wondering if we won the debate or not, which probably isn't the case lol, yep we won!!!

we basically used the arguments that the detainees lack of meeting the criteria needed for P.O.W status shows that they are dangerous people and any measures that were any more lenient would be risky,

that by forfeiting the human rights of others they forfeited thier own,

that one terrorist was worth the thousands of lives that they would endanger,

and that gitmo, by working as a deterent, by containing dangerous people (i.e working as a preventative detention), by extracting information from detainees, by sending a message to terrorists, by sending a message to the world preventing vigilantism and by rehabilitating detainnes, prevents terrorism.

i'm not sure if they were the best arguments to go with but they worked.

the negating team went with human rights and the guantanamo bay by creating a bad image for the U.S increased terrorism.

the hardest bit was trying to prove that people in guantanamo bay deserve to be there since there is no trial (although there is a screening process).

thanks for everyone's help!!!!!

[j_p]

I am very happy for you.

 

And thoroughly horrified.

 

But, hey, congratulations.