The Instigator
Conspiracyrisk
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
the_banjo_sender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Blind Debate #2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 85321
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Conspiracyrisk

Pro

Blind debating! To me, it's the most fun form of debating. The concept is that I don't know what topic will be debated, and I don't get to choose what side I will be. Yes, it essentially gives advantage to whomever accepts the debate.

Rules for Topic Picking
- Debate topic cannot be a troll debate (Are shower curtains sentient?), religious debate (I will accept creation vs. evolution), or political candidate debate (Should Bernie Sanders be elected?).
- You may choose to argue first or last. However, if you decide to argue first, you must not make any arguments the final round (you can still make some random statements irrelevant to the topic of debate).
- Debate topic should not be so specific or obscure that it is hard to research effectively
- If you aren't sure if a topic qualifies, just ask me

General Rules
- Definitions should be provided and contested in the first round arguments are made (which may be round one if my opponent so chooses). Beyond that, the most common contemporary definitions will be assumed.
- Follow all rules for topic picking.
- Forfeiture (without an accepted excuse from the other side), breaking round setup, or breaking rules will result in an automatic win for the other side.

Round Setup
Round One: Acceptance, Questions Only (Unless my opponent chooses to argue first)
Round Two: Opening Arguments Only
Round Three: Rebuttals
Round Four: Arguments Only
Round Five: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No arguments outside of rebuttals)

Suggestions (Not requirements)
- I would prefer it if you didn't pick a hot topic or one that is often debated
- Topics neither of us likely know much about can make things more interesting and fun
- Have fun!
the_banjo_sender

Con

Resolved: Torture is Justified if it is used for National Security. I shall be PRO, you shall be CON. Okey Dokey?
Debate Round No. 1
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

My opponent brought up a very interesting topic. Personally, I am not sure where I lie on this issue, but for this debate I must be con. I must argue that torture is not justified even when used for national security. This will be difficult.

I thank my opponent for participating in this interesting debate. May the best debater win!

Torture - "something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I, personally, believe in some absolute morals. That is, some things are morally correct or morally incorrect no matter the situation. Torture is one of those things.

There are many forms of torture, but they all have one thing in common - to drive the person being tortured to a state of extreme mental displease so that they would be willing to do almost anything. Most often, torture is used to get information from people.

This is a terrible thing to do to a person. Torture can have very long-lasting mental effects on people, such as PTSD[1]. Even if this does get information, the long-term effects are not worth it. Nations get very bad reputations for using torture, and in the end it simply is not worth risking a good state on the world scene even if it leads to some useful information.

American use of torture is a common tactic to get people to join terrorist groups. One director of the CIA said, "The prison at Guantanamo Bay undermines our national security, and our nation will be more secure the day when that prison is finally and responsibly closed." Guantanamo has many security risks associated with it. Prisoners are denied human rights. It is a cruel, cold place to be[2].

The fact remains that many people will say anything to get out of torture, including giving false information. This completely negates the use and even need for torture.

Morals do not work on a slider. They are not proportionate to what is at stake. Morals are what they are, and they exist for a reason. Torture is banned internationally for a reason. It contradicts basic human rights. Even if the people tortured are malicious people, they are people nonetheless and have the same rights as any human. To give rights to some criminals and not others is hypocritical.

Sources:
[1] http://www.irct.org...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com...
the_banjo_sender

Con

the_banjo_sender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

Well, this is the rebuttals round, and my opponent forfeited, so...
the_banjo_sender

Con

I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. See, this thing called "life" sort of has be backed up. Given time, I will gladly continue this debate, but it's looking somewhat unlikely.

Cheerio!
Debate Round No. 3
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

Conspiracyrisk forfeited this round.
the_banjo_sender

Con

the_banjo_sender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

Conspiracyrisk forfeited this round.
the_banjo_sender

Con

the_banjo_sender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 1 year ago
Conspiracyrisk
Sure, we can debate that!
Posted by the_banjo_sender 1 year ago
the_banjo_sender
How about: "Is Torture Justified if used for National Security?"
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 1 year ago
Conspiracyrisk
I'm not sure how that could be debated, as it's merely speculation. Give me a resolution and I'll give it a "yay" or "nay".
Posted by the_banjo_sender 1 year ago
the_banjo_sender
How do you feel about Time Travel? Good? Bad? Ugly?
No votes have been placed for this debate.