Language: The Importance of “Packaging”
December 12, 2008
The Round
Adjudicator: Logandran “Logan” Balavijendran (Chung Ang University, Korea)
Tournament: MMU British Parliamentary Open
Location: Multimedia University, Malaysia
Dates: December 11, 2005
Motion: “This house believes that torture is a necessary evil.”
Teams: OP : (4th) G.S.E (Azrul & Azahan)
OO: (2nd) MMU 1 (Sumi & Kandahar)
CP : (1st) McTate (Tate & Mac)
CO : (3rd) IIU1 (Irma & Raihan)
Abstract: The Opening Proposition defines torture vaguely, using more extreme examples, and hinges the case upon its effectiveness in garnering information from suspected terrorists. Opening Opposition attacks the effectiveness of apprehending terrorists and pushes other alternatives. Closing Proposition delicately shapes the definition of torture by using clear examples, and in extension argues torture as a deterrent, thereby absorbing some of Opening Opposition’s argumentation.
Discussion
This motion places a moral value on torture and requires Opening Proposition to defend something “evil” by arguing it is necessary. The Opening Proposition thus needs to present a clear picture of torture as a tool and show how effective it can be to achieve good. Many limits on torture would reduce how “evil” it is, but also might limit its effectiveness as an interrogation tool. Poor definition of this scope early in the debate could create problems for closing teams, especially Closing Proposition.
The Prime Minister defines torture as “that defined by the Attorney General of the USA”, who in turn identifies such actions as those that “do not cause severe pain” and avoid “causing internal organ failure” but does not give examples of what is acceptable and not acceptable. In response to a POI, the Prime Minister mentions electric shocks and water boarding as things that they might consider acceptable. He says the objective of using torture is to “capture these criminals” and argues because terrorists are so hard to detect, we must use everything in our means to get information from the few we have in custody.
The Leader Opposition attacks torture in a general sense and not the particularly weak definitions of the Prime Minister. She seemed to accept that the limits set on bodily harm were clear enough, and argued instead that the Proposition were ignoring the psychological trauma these suspects might suffer. She goes on to argue that information obtained under duress is not credible, terrorists operate in a dispersed manner and there are other better alternatives. One of her main thrusts is that terrorist organizations will cancel their plans once a member is caught, thereby evading arrest.
The Deputy Prime Minister argues that the value of information is subjective and many intelligence organizations have obtained useful information using torture. He also suggests that interrogators can increase the intensity of torture (”turn up the voltage”) if the suspect is not cooperating
The Member Proposition does not redefine torture but consistently uses clear examples of milder forms of torture (truth serums and sleep deprivation), and repackages torture as one tool in the arsenal of the war against terrorism, only referring to it as “hard interrogation techniques”. He also argues, and this is their extension, that torture creates a larger deterrence effect. So even if Opening Opposition’s argument that the information obtained would be useless because terrorists would change their plans, that in itself prevents the terrorists from launching an attack and thus creates a safer environment.
This topic requires a clear definition of torture that allows the Proposition bench to mitigate the evilness of torture and focus on its effectiveness. A vague setup would tend towards more, not less, torture. Closing Proposition thus inherits a hard case that is not clear – how do they support a policy they disagree with and still get a result from the debate? If Closing Proposition attempts to clarify the policy they risk contradicting their Opening team. Also, when the policy is unclear, it makes it harder to evaluate benefits of the policy and easier to show harms and abuse.
There are two interesting things Closing Government did in this debate. First, they changed the language used to refer to the policy (prompting the Opposition to claim a shift in policy) but without changing the policy itself. They also provided an extension that was responsive to the main opposition from Opening Opposition (raising attacks on the validity of their extension), by converting a weakness into a benefit.
The adjudication panel did not believe the Closing Proposition shifted Opening Proposition’s case. They basically did a better PR campaign for torture than Opening Proposition-they presented torture in a slighter softer light while increasing the rhetoric about how evil terrorists are and maintaining that they would not stop at anything to save innocent lives. They positioned torture as one of the necessary tools to combat terrorists; thereby impacting the lack of mutual exclusivity with the Oppositions alternative plans and making the use of torture seem more acceptable.
Their extension was valid and very effective. It was almost a rebuttal, but it was packaged well and significantly improved the effectiveness of torture as a tool to combat terrorism. They defended the validity of torture in finding useful information, but argued that even if we don’t find information that could lead to arrest, the use of hard interrogation techniques forces terrorists organizations to cancel their plans and that leads to saving lives. They packaged this as the deterrence impact of using torture, and I felt it was a significant enough contribution to the debate to constitute a valid extension.
This round provides an example of how to defend a Opening Proposition policy that might be too vague or hard, without contradicting the Opening Proposition, and that is by using better examples and more politically correct terminology. It also shows how a new perspective on the effectiveness of a policy can be used as an effective extension.
Would you like to comment?
