The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is Torture Justifiable?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 51412
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




"Pro": In some cases (or all cases), torture is justifiable.
"Con": Torture is never justifiable.

Debate-Related Definitions and Boundaries
a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
The American Heritage" Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright "2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

* Positions listed above are essentially a flexible outline, but stance on the matter must be clearly defined by the opponent taking on the opposite position prior to and during the first round of the argument.

* Additional ideas related to the topic may be explored during the discussion. However, please stick to the main idea and opinions in order for a successful debate and minimal confusion.

* I ask that proper English grammar be used, as well as valuable sources of information (in-text citations are acceptable) and reasonably structured arguments.

* Please, no plagiarism or offensive language.

Argument Time: 72 Hours
Character Max: 8,000
Voting Period: 10 Days
Rounds: 4

Round #1: Claims
Round #2: Warrants
Round #3: Refutations
Round #4: Conclusions

* Forfeited rounds will be skipped. If you forfeit, attempt to briefly make up for lost time in the beginning of your next argument, then continue with your next round.

Best of luck,


What if the life of your closest friends and family are at risk?
Debate Round No. 1


"What if the life of your closest friends and family are at risk?" Please elaborate; so far, this is an aimless rhetorical question. Since we are now to the warrant stage of this debate, I will proceed with my own claim.

According to the UN Human Rights Presumption of Innocence, as noted by the United For Human Rights website, "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Therefore, everyone is innocent until legally proven guilty. The majority of the world"s population would agree that torture of innocent people is morally wrong. This also means that the torturer could, however, be deemed a criminal. Additionally, if you coerce someone into confessing by means of torture, it may not be true; they might simply be trying to do whatever they can to escape the torture. So not only is this a morally unacceptable means of gaining information from those being interrogated, but it is also inaccurate. "Regardless of whether or not torture satisfies the immediate requirement of extracting information from a prisoner, the act of torturing the prisoner does not occur in isolation. The act"s repercussions reach far beyond the torture chamber, into the future well-being of the victim, the mental health and stability of the interrogator, and the dynamics of the victim"s society...In order for the interrogator to treat a detainee so harshly and still be able to sleep at night, he needs to learn to see the victim as less than human"i.e. to dehumanize the detainee," as stated by the University of Washington students" report. This amplifies the message that since torture almost always affects victims for an extended period of time, sometimes even the rest of their lives, it is not a justified means of obtaining an immediate response from the victim. It also notes that even the torturers believe that what they are doing is wrong; in order for them to continue doing what they are doing, even if it is their job, they must dehumanize the victim so that the guilt does not weigh them down. If even the bounders of this scenario admit that torture is wrong, why is anyone else questioning its morality?


hibyedb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Awaiting opponent's response.


hibyedb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My argument stands.

I really wish my opponent would have put up a better argument for a legitimate debate.


hibyedb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OliveJuice 2 years ago
Thank you, and I agree with the goals of better understanding and knowledge. I do not, however, have any enthusiasm for creating a duplicate debate.
Posted by Yarron 2 years ago
Sorry that this one didn't work out, but you have my vote once it officially ends.
Please feel free to create a replica debate and challenge me to it (although I would personally prefer an extra round to critique each others rebuttals before the conclusion. I also wouldn't mind a shorter time limit.)
I'm less interested in the winning/losing aspects of debates but rather expounding on them for a better overall understanding and this one deserves such treatment.

All the best.
Posted by OliveJuice 2 years ago
@Yarron, thanks for the comment. That is one of the most frustrating things about this website, but I guess everyone is at different levels, right? If you would like to, please feel welcome to join a different one of my debates, as I frequently create new ones. I really wish that debate creators had the option to choose their opponent out of a pool of people that wish to argue the opposing side before beginning the debate.
Posted by Yarron 2 years ago
Bit of a shame that a debate being taken so seriously by Con is being met with over simplistic approaches by Pro. I hope that level is ramped up since it's still early. I would like to see a full expounding on this topic and would even have potentially enjoyed arguing Pro's side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.