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

Is it moral for the army to torture our enemies?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 52317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




I challenge you to defend your blatant pro-torture stance

First round is acceptance


LOL!! If I had to save my girlfriend and kids from dying I'd torture people!

The ends justify the means, shirtless dude!
Debate Round No. 1


Your victim has a family too!

You know this as a fact, because in one of the other cells, your buddies are raping his wife at this very moment!
The sound of their yelling and her screams carry. It is chilling.

Now to the torture!
What would you care to do to him?

Inflict pain?
With the pliers, the electrodes or the baton in your fist?

Humiliate him?
Make him masturbate to the sound of his wife being raped?
Rape him?

Which torture method, I wonder, is more moral?
Do you know the answer?


NO he doesnt!!! My victim is a homeless guy that will hurt my family because he locked them up in his basement!!

I wouldnt care to do anything to him. I would just TORTURE HIM, DUH!
Debate Round No. 2


As you use the pliers to rip out his finger nails, one by one, his twisting in his restraints, his crying and above all the screaming gets to you. Is this really you? This cruel, evil, sadistic person, pulling a man's sensitive fingernails out, one at the time, with such force, that you are covered in his blood.

He is a state of pain, that you cannot begin to imagine and you begin to doubt that you are doing the right thing here.

How should this man, this homeless man, even be holding your family prisoner in his basement, that he does not own?


LOL. I see my opponent made my reply time RELLY shjort so he can win!!


The homeless guy has a BASEMENT. DUH. A basement and a garage. A basement and a garade IS NOT A HOUSE. SO HE IS STIL HOMELESS, jUST NOT BASMENT-LESS!!!

I win.
Debate Round No. 3


Something tells me that my honorable opponent might,not be playing with a full house of cards.

But a garage and a basement, could, for a modest man, with a loving wife and a beautiful daughter, be considered a home. It certainly seems unusual to term a man, who owns two structures, each of which could provide shelter, as homeless?

Are you quite sure, you are pulling the fingernails out of the right man here?
He wildly, tear filled eyes, proclaims his innocence. He knows nothing of the whereabouts of your family?

What do you do next?


invisibledeity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


The question I wanted answered here, is not if you can torture a man to telling you lies about a family he has never seen. But whether you could interrogate him, using torture, and still be moral?

Wikipedia says about Morality:
from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad or wrong.

Let's take a look see:
Your intentions seems proper. You cannot find your wife by virtue of a lesbian "marriage", nor the children, you seem to have spawned, not only out of wedlock, but without a man. Doesn't sound too moral to me, but no laws have been broken here, that is, if you can remember who the father of the children are?

Decision: You leap into the world of fear, pain and humiliation, straight away. No questions first. No, the homeless man who lives in a basement, maybe a garage, is to be made to suffer!
So you force him to hear as his wife is raped! You tear of his fingernails. A very brutal and cruel torture indeed.
Only to find that you seem to be dealing with a case of mistaken identity.

Now, that is not proper, very cruel, not good in the least, and very, very wrong .

So, not moral

Thank you, dear opponent.
vote for me plz


invisibledeity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by STALIN 2 years ago
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
WOW the serb actually won this one
Posted by anynomunis 2 years ago
It depends. If we use waterbording or as DICK cheny called it "enhanced interogation" than it will be morally wrong. You will not get accruit information. And you will confess about stuff just to make it stop, HOWEVER, if you use Soviet, North Korean style techniques. Than you might have luck although it can differ in many ways.
Posted by Buggie111 2 years ago
invisibledeity vs. The_serb. Getting popcorn now.
Posted by Buggie111 2 years ago
invisibledeity vs. The_serb. Getting popcorn now.
Posted by The_Serb 2 years ago
Note to "invisibledeity"
I did not, as accused, make the time you have to work out an answer unfairly short to gain an advantage.
The same time restraints apply to myself. I am just not a very patient man :-)
Posted by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
Why did you make about 16 debates about torture? No offence but think you have psychological issues.
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
You're clearly addicted to speaking about torture, you should speak to a psychiatrist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty darn obvious!
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Fascinating debate guys... normally I reserve judgement on such controversial topics, but clearly there is a winner for reasons I am listing below. Conduct - Con. Both debaters upheld proper conduct towards one another. What cost Pro conduct points were the two forfeited rounds. This left the Con hanging and is never acceptable conduct by any standards for a debater. S & G - Con. Both debaters had good enough S & G for the first two rounds, but in R3 Pro made two spelling errors which is more than what Con made. For this, I have to award points to Con. Arguments - Tie. In the nature of a troll debate, it is difficult to assess who provided better arguments. This was more of a conversation than anything else. The forfeits could count against Pro but I have already applied that to Conduct, therefore this remains a tie. Sources - Tie. Neither provided sources.