I would be at the Dems study break... but, yeahno. Gingerbread White House? Psh, LAME-O. Plus y'all totally copied BGLTSA's Queer Festivus with "Love Actually." 

OOH we're starting. Daren is introducing this seventh debate, and the last for this calendar year. 

Two dudes from speech and parliamentary debate in snazzy suits are repping the "pro-torture" side. 

Dark Blue Shirt Guy (I'm sorry I forgot his name) is asking us to think about a bomb in New York City that one man can detonate (and stop). In this instance torture would be justified. 

Light Blue Shirt Guy (his name is Alan): "There really is no other way to get this information." 

"What we're going to [ask our opponents], is to draw [the line of tortore]... We're allowed to deprive people of sleep... Why is physical damage so different than mental damage." 

Now snazzy suit guys are pulling the guilt string. Imagine the politician who went against torture and now sees his constituents blasted away. 

The Human Rights brigade: "Katie and I are going to approach this debate with human rights... the US was complicit in the torture of Latin America... Is slavery a policy option? Is genocide? Yet torture has been transformed into a justifible tactic." 

"The US cannot afford to make itself as a pariah... You can't win against a war of terror with terror." 

A review of prisoners at Gunatanamo shows that 80% of the prisoners were sent in from other countries by bounty hunters.

Alan: I would be proud to stand by an American gov't that stands by its people.. you can't exercise any of your freedoms if you cannot feel secure in your own person

"Where they value the human dignity of this one person who is probably involved [in the war on terror]... we would argue that this is the true confusion of American policy."

"We incarcerate people, and in several situations we give them the death penalty." And this is a "safe" society. That's actually a good point. 

"We're torturing in order to save citizens." 

Kyle (that's the other dude's name) has a really solid voice. I hope that's not awkward for me to write. I know I always comment on Chris Lacaria's wardrobe whenever I see him (dude dresses nicely). He must *hate* me. 

YAY IT'S KATIE SMITH! "How are we supposed to put to rest global violence by using violence." 

"Torture is not an effective means of stopping violence. They will tell their torturers what they want to know." 

Torture has led to faulty evidence. *COUGH THE IRAQ WAR COUGH*

According to Katie between Guantanamo and Abu Grab-Ass, the US is really lacking in the human rights department. This in turn puts our soldiers at risk if they get captured by enemies. Remember that movie with Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman where broken-nose was stuck somewhere as a lone soldier? That was a good movie. 

BEHIND ENEMY LINES! That was the name of that movie.

"We need to really reflect when the argument of security supercedes the values we hold important." - Katie

Question from snazzy suit guys involving mental trauma like sleep deprivation. Can they justify that? 

Kyle: Why should we abandon this tactic that is not perfect? Torture has proven to give some good results. 

HCS advocates: When will this hypothetical occur? And since it's almost a consensus that this won't occur, what loopholes are you willing to recognize? 

Noah informs me that there are serious communists in the room. 

Alan says that he sincerely hopes this situation never occurs. But these are situations that terrorist groups are planning. JACK BAUER WHY AREN'T YOU A REAL PERSON?

Justin Murray: You address the hypothetical a lot... but what about this hypothetical. What if we knew with complete certainty that lesser forms of torture wouldn't work and that the information would save 1000 people and the only tactic for getting the information would be to rape [a person] (also no external consequences)? AND NO ALTERNATIVES. 

Alan: I don't think we'd necessarily support rape, but we could cause pain (emotional or physical) to get the information. 

HCS advocates: I think that the hypothetical is "interesting." In terms of the kind of legal framework, it would most likely be sterilized needles under fingernails - maximum pain without being lethal. 

I will take this time to thank our moderators - one of whom is Tim Hwang. I still support his UC platform wholeheartedly. 

HCS advocates says that US gov't would lose face to employ torture. 

Noah asks a question about the philosophical use of violence, like apartheid South Africa or Palestinian civil disobedience... 

"We're using violence to stop some other form of violence." The other side says Noah's question is actually the heart of the argument. And this would make full-out wars less likely. Jack Bauer would agree. 

Concluding remarks! 

Kyle: We present the most morally consistent platform. If torture establishes security, than it is the right thing to do. The voters elected the officials, thus we have accountability and we must protect their right to life... Terrorism could put lives at risk and this must be looked at. 

Alan thinks that it is important to protect the rights of people being tortured. Their framework is more consistent than the current status quo. Physicians and judiciary would be present so that there can be correct and adequate prosecution for terrorists. 

Katie cites the egregious human rights violations of the war on terror. Once again we have the Abu Grab-Ass bomb. 

Their argument comes down to the idea that no security begets no rights.... torture is not the way to achieve their own goals...

If this is a war about spreading democracy than we should have active democracy at home