The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Is Torture Something We Should Practice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 12/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,010 times Debate No: 41734
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The first post is to accept the challenge and verify your stance.

Summary: I believe that the idea of practicing torture on humans, no matter their ethnicity is merely that of inhumane and harmful being. It leads to the craving of going for the kill and can mentally and physically destroy a person who is the target of the interrogation.


Although I accept, and I will defend my view of the useing pain thresholds as a method of encouragement to people who are otherwise unwilling to divulge information related to the death or possible death of innocent civilians or fellow countrymen is warrented and rightous.

Using pain thresholds as a measure of sexual or some other form of personal gratification, or excitement is vile and sick. I don't even like S&M.

Practicing Torture is not like practicing baseball, and then using it in a game. It would be more like a doctor. Every time a doctor "practices" there are real life consequences that follow all the way to the end. So I definitely do not thing there should be practice. It should only be done at the time it needs to be done.

Sometimes, equivocation starts debates like this. The site asks for person's view on "torture" the describes in it's use for information gathering. A person says they agree with it and the next thing you know, another person applies a different context and every thing you said about the subject before completly goes out the window.

It would be like me asking you if you beieved in excitement and you said yes. Then I asked if you like jumping off of bridges and you said no. Then I went on to badgering you about how you must like jumping off bridges because you said you believed in excitement. In the end, not only have I challenged you as a person, I have totaly destroyed your confidence in your own ability to make decisions. Notice the difference of the first two statements. Initialy I say do you believe in it. Next I ask if you like my idea of excitement. The two are very differnt leading, and loaded questions. As a rule for this debate I hope that we can stay away from this type of nasty pidgeon holings.

Secondly, Despite what the media says concering this subject, Those views are not nesseceraly entirely my views. I do know what my views are and I will state them as clearly as possible, I expect you will state your views as clearly as possible also. And we will neither attempt to state each other's views nor strawman in any form.
Debate Round No. 1


Torture. It's an idea of using physical force to get answers. Like breaking a person's arm or the fingers that are on it. Cutting the body. The Chinese Torture. I have found many ways of torture. Eventually, my ideas of torture grew into that of murders. What started as the idea of letting a cutting a man, letting him be out in the boat for the sharks to get him unless he told me info grew into this. I cut the man, tie him to the end of the boat, duck tape his body, drive with him in the water while letting the open wound bleed, and eventually the shark ate him. Not only would it turn flawed, but it would turn into the part where I loved people dying. That was disturbing. I see people practicing torture methods on bugs and little animals.

Back to the point. When you physically injure somebody in a torture, you can go too far. There exists a thing. Death. The person can die from possible blows you let them take. They can also be psychologically harmed. The Chinese Torture method is very intense and can leave some people scarred if it goes on. There are no real limits to torture except no killing. The idea is inhumane because unless you know who your dealing with, you don't know the person.

Example, you take an Iraqi Terrorist member who had been left behind by his group. You interrogate him for information regarding whereabouts or next attack. He refuses to give up. So you torture him to get an answer. What if he was forced to do it or else his wife and children die? We forget just how human we are. You can take Iraqi in this sentence and replace it with any form of country name and it applies the same way.

Torture is stooping to the lowest. Cops have other ways of getting information. Interrogation. Simple and easy. Going back to the same scenario, maybe you empathize. Find out about his kids. Say you'll offer him and his family protection, if he gives up any info to help out. BOOM! Nobody gets injured. So to end my starting statements, allow me to finish.

Torture = 100% Injuries of mental or physical kind

Interrogation = Not so much


Are you speaking of your own personal experiences on this matter? Or Theoretically?

The inevitable death of all humans is ironic in the fact that we as humans celebrate so much. No possible thing that you do can keep your physical body from dying and decaying afterward. What happens to your soul afterward should be scheduled for a different debate.

We have spoken before on the disassociation, and dissociative disorders but I would like to repeat it here for other viewing this debate. Can torture lead to dissociate personality disorders in their perpetrators? Yes they can. But does a fire fighter still break a window to save a child?

The window is inanimate and has no feelings. But we aren't referring to random mutilation of unknown persons. We are speaking of the treatment of people who have made a conscious decision to act and live immorally. Their feelings and thoughts are not known to those of us who believe in the goodness of humanity.

Without proper training, those of us who do believe in the goodness of humanity tend to project our own opinions as the opinions of those who are around us. Well even those who don't believe in goodness project their opinions as being the same as those around them. Heck, the first rule of becoming successful is to surround yourself with people who act how you want to act so you can learn to think how they think and then make similar decisions on your own.

Death is the result of war. Death comes by an unknown number means including ones that are slow and painful. What's that old saying of Patton? "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." There are those of us who have accepted this challenge and agreed that we will do whatever it takes to make the other poor bastards die for their country through whatever means necessary. Why have we done this? or rather Why have I done it?

Because I believe that these people will kill whoever they please. They will find targets to destroy just for the sake of finding targets. If I train to fight them and challenge them, their mind is not capable of diverting their attention back to random killing. This is something that I have always found puzzling about the way the criminal mind works. In cartoons like the Thundercats, Mum-ra is initially set on ruling the world, but in the end his whole focus is on defeating the Thundercats. Does he ever rule the world? No. Does he ever beat the Thundercats? No. Does any villain ever beat the hero? No they don't. They can't. Even though they have all of the tools and abilities to utterly destroy good, they won't because it would negate their purpose. The problem with heroes is that as soon as they neutralize the threat, they stop fighting. The good has the ability to utterly annihilate their opponent and they don't do it.

Call me a Mongolian if you want, but God called the Israelites to utterly destroy their enemies. He didn't even want them to keep their livestock. Why is that? I think it has to do with the human condition that somehow empathy leads to bitterness and regret. Having the enemies cattle would just be a reminder of the lives that could have been lived. But the problem with that is you never know which person you save either will or won't have the constitution to grow up and seek revenge. Consider Attila the Hun for that matter, he was spared in battle as a child, learned the ways of the Muslims, then grew up and slaughtered them by the thousands.

I'm sorry if I got off topic in the previous statements, but my purpose is to debate the nature of humanity in war and how it applies to innocent people vs. warriors.

Interrogation only works if you can outwit the victim. I think we both agree that neither the criminal, nor the militant are just willing to give up their information. But I do think we can agree that the threshold is different. What kind of mind do you have to have to outwit a bully who would kill without provocation? Bullies certainly don't respond to the appeal of authority, or kindness. It's actually unfortunate that there are these people in this world who still have such a primitive mind, but when the use of breaking pain thresholds is the only way to get other to respond to our requests, it becomes necessary.

If a person doesn't respond to normal interrogation, I think it's safe to assume that person no longer contains the essence of morality that seprates humans from animals.
Debate Round No. 2


That story about God telling his people to kill in war, when was that? Old Testament? Things change. There is no more need for holy wars. Unless your with Army of God or any other lunatic Crusader.

Like I said, if they don't respond, you don't know everything unless you have their psych profile and background. Remember the story of the guy with the family. Russian Spetsnaz have been known to have trained under conditions where they will NEVER give in to torture. And if Green Berets are the same, if i may ask you sir, would you consider them not human if they don't respond to the torture and questions?

Torture is pretty much the unnecessary use of force to get answers.

So is it ok for play with guns at them? Is it ok use the prisoner's body as a bathroom? Is it ok to mutilate them? To abuse them?

Remember, while the enemy you fight does wrong, America has done plenty of it's own corrupt ways. The military was used to attack the protesting veterans in the Great Depression. The result, a woman and her baby died. President Hoover didn't apologize. While I support our troops, I believe in fighting for the right reasons. We have no involvement in Syria and it may turn into something where we ask for something in return for our help, even we are gonna help anyways. The government is corrupt for using war to steal and attack people for their own benefits. Explain the sweatshops we have.

Back on topic. If you need to use torture to get answers, then no offense because I bet you can beat me up, your an idiot. My English professor has stated that words have a ton of power because words hurt or heal. It's how you use your words carefully.

Also: Do you think all Muslims or anybody from the Middle East is a supporter of terrorism and death to America?


Sorry for my last post, it was long and probably hard to follow. But now we are into territory that I mentioned in my acceptance.

The meaning of torture has changed again. In the first round, it was the mere act of torture. In the second round it was the use of physical force to gain information from captured militants. In this third round, torture is now peeing on the body of prisoners. I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

Actually, I am sure where you are going with this. By changing the meaning of the term halfway through the argument, it changes the meaning of what I said in the previous rounds.

I will not answer your questions and I challenge the legitimacy of your argument. I will let your questions stand as their own misleading representations of your own views that they are.

Sweatshops, middle easterners, President Hoover, Syria? There is still another round. Let’s bring it back to topic.

Russian Spetnaz, green berets, that’s the threshold I was talking about earlier. If torture after capture is not the answer, giving them some tea and cookies won’t be an adequate method of interrogation either. I can see it now, you give them a nice warm bed and hot bath and badabing, the next wikilinks is born (probably not). But let’s be real no information is the same as no information. Whatever information, you can’t get, you can’t get.

Debate Round No. 3


So the point is this. Torture will be ways of getting info. But just to clarify, here is the definition of torture.

Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained.

I have also seen where torture involves leaving the victim to suffer with dogs attacking him, sodomizing, and threatening the victims family. If anything, the people who torture others are the animals. You promote violence and hostility instead of the American and Christian love and peace. As a Christian Anarchist, this is why I despise most of our wars. Because it's now a game. You get power or authority over somebody, and you will abuse it. This was proven in 1970 with the Stanford Prison Experiment. And the conformity to almost kill people was the Milgram Experiment in 1964. I'm sure we are familiar with the Standford Experiment. But the Milgram Experiment was one where people were paid 4 bucks an hour. They were told to shock a man in a seperate room. The man was actually an actor who gave a good illusion. They were told to shock him and later increase the voltage of shock each time. Not many people left the experiment. Most people continued because they were obeying a higher authority figure. So when we torture or are told information about torture, some of us are fools for obeying to conformity instead of learning about the damage of torture ourselves. From the picture I have shown, would you rather do it humanely. Or would you rather be the animal that corrupt military officers are trying to enforce on society.


In this final round, the use of the term torture is equivocated to the use of crossing pain thresholds for personal gratification, sexual or otherwise, of the person performing the acts.

There are kids hurting small animals, they are sick. Once you start hurting animals, I don't think a normal life is possible and if it is possilble the chances are slim. I'm not toaling about hurting animals in the sense of killing them for food. I don't care for the taste of all meats but eating meat in general is nutritional and delicious.

You won't get any information from any one by leaving them for dogs to eat, or sodomizing them. And you won't get any infromation from animals.

In the movie "Unthinkable," a man is put through rigerous tests of physical and mental hardships during his interrogation because he is threatening the lives of thousands of others with a bomb that is set to explode somewhere in the city. The man is very well trained to withstand the attacks. But eventually the man gives up the information of all of the bombs but one. The bomb goes off and he kills himself. In this movie, it is very clear that the man being interogated is killer. The killer is using tools to kill inocent civilians. The interogator is using his tools against a killer and for the purpose of saving 1,000 contributing members of society vs. the poor treatment of a destructive member of society.

There are many people who if put in the situation would give up thier own life it meant saving someone elses. Even the killer in "Unthinkable" cracks when his children are threatened, but only a little bit. This killer has lost his humanity and longs for the death of thousands. He would even murder his children, or at the very least stand idley by while he watches them be murdered.

The movie also shows the the great lengths people will go through to save lives. presents the information in the manner of whether or not you do or don't agree with toture in this context.

The toture you describe is like "saw" or "hostel" which is usleless and dehuminiizing.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Muscle_Boy 2 years ago
Pro guy really understands torture
Posted by ChristianPunk 2 years ago
Cast in ya'lls votes
Posted by Alistad09 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro--stop complaining and define torture. Pro's #1 argument is a movie. Con--stop rambling and give some criticism of torture, instead of "it hurts." Also, your arguments are confusing. By the way, Con, if you did some research you'd find that torture does not work. People say correct information, but also tons of false information under torture. They basically say anything. But that's neither here nor there. Both--you're both offensive. Neither of you researched. I found that Con was slightly more convincing, but neither side provided much in the way of evidence. Con wins.