The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Hound
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Hound
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,780 times Debate No: 13857
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

blackhawk1331

Pro

After a question asked in school today, I decided that I want to debate that torture can sometimes be fine.

Torture - the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I think that torture is okay in one case and one case only, but that is enough for me to win. Now, I think torture is acceptable when it is being used to coerce people into telling information that could save lives. Here is an example, and then the argument is open to the first to accept it.
Example: United States soldiers capture a terrorist who knows the time and location of a bombing that could kill thousands of people. This terrorist refuses to give information. Now, should the soldiers just say 'fine if you won't tell we'll have to deal with it'? NO! They should torture the terrorist until they tell the time and location of the bombing. This way the area can be evacuated, or it's even possible that the bombing could be stopped. By torturing this terrorist until information is revealed thousands of lives could be saved. Now, I feel that the needs of the many out way the needs of the few. Especially when the many are innocent United States civilians, and the few is a murdering terrorist.

I challenge someone to refute my point, and provide their own.
Hound

Con

I'd like to say hello to Blackhawk and to say thank you for bringing up this debate. I wish him the best of luck.

Firstly, I shall address my opponent's points accordingly.

"Now, I think torture is acceptable when it is being used to coerce people into telling information that could save lives. Here is an example, and then the argument is open to the first to accept it."

At first, this argument seems understandable; who wouldn't crack under torture? But, would they crack the way you wanted them to? Allow me to elaborate. Under torture (I shall use something like wounding.) Say you're being wounded repeatedly and being asked where you've planted the bombs. You'll say anything to get them to stop, right? Right? Of course! So... what do you do? You think on your feet. You tell them information, but the wrong ones. You give incorrect coordinates, incorrect details, and they cease their afflictions. It's a win-win.

Also, upon getting notice of an associate's capture, don't you think the fellow terrorists would change their plans? Smart ones would.

My point here is that what is to stop a terrorist from lying? They are liars from the beginning, you think a measly torture session can make them crack? Yes, they CAN, but there can be instances where they'll say anything - lies, even.

Moving on, I'd like to bring my own view on the table. Torturing accompanies the fact that some people would have to be trained to be torturers. Torturers have sometimes been shown to have psychological problems. This can spread to their families.

We'd have to give attention to those who are tortured, diverting our focus on more vital issues (our debt, for example?)

How are we being any better than the terrorist if we're torturing, anyway? You're helping them by doing so. Their goal is to cause pain and terr, and if we torture someone we're going through a mental metamorphosis; human morality is thrashed and stepped on in exchange for information that could be false to the tether.
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Pro

First of all, thank you for accepting Hound.

Now, for Con's first rebuttal. Sure, it's possible to think on their feet and lie, but answer this for me. How likely would it be for you to lie when your suffering and in fear of death? Also, what are your odds of truly making a win-win situation. When the details you give are checked and seen to be false, you will just be tortured more. So, isn't better to just tell the truth in the first place? I'd also like to point out that if civilians end up dead, you'll end up either in jail or being killed yourself. There will be no chance of freedom. Plus, I was referring more to the 9/11 bombings where a plane was flown into the target. So, it's hard to lie about that because only so many planes are flying, and flight paths can be checked quickly. All-in-all, it's better to just tell the truth, the torture will end sooner and you might (and this is a BIG might) get to go free.

They might change their plans, but it's doubtful if they're under way. They also don't know that the captured person will crack. Plus, if they change plans then they take time, and they could be found during that time. I also would like to point out that the information could be a hideout.

I've already addressed why lying is unlikely. Terrorists are not liars from the beginning, they are doing what they think is right based upon religion, so there is no argument there as to why they would lie. Plus, isn't the chance of getting them to crack through torture better than no chance at all, and just waiting for the attack to come and for innocent people to die?

Who says you'd have to train someone? You could just get a list of people who would be willing to torture to save lives, and pull from that list at random. I know I could be on that list. I have absolutely no problem with torturing a miserable, rotten, no good terrorist if it means that I could save some American civilians. I'd really be fine if it could save any civilians of any nationality. I'd feel worse if I didn't try, and innocent people died. Plus, all of the arguments in this point include words such as sometimes and can. This implies that there don't HAVE to be problems.

We wouldn't have to lose focus on our debt. It's not like the same person is going to be dealing with the torturing and the debt. I'd also like for my opponent to answer these questions. Can a price be placed on an innocent life? Is it really more worth our time to pay back some money than it is to save innocent lives?

We aren't like them at all by torturing. They kill for some sort of supremacy whereas we would be torturing to save the lives of innocent people. I'd also like to point out that the only way to truly beat the terrorists is to make them more afraid of us than we are of them. Think about it. If you are bombing one building and killing a few thousand innocents, and then the US retaliates by searching out you, your allies, and the schools were you train kids to be terrorists and then bombing them till the ground is flat, who's going to be more afraid? You are, and you are going to stop the bombing so no harm comes to you, either that or you and every other terrorist will die. Either way, the terrorism stops, the torture stops, and the peace is restored.

And yes, the information could be false, but as I've already stated, the chance of saving people is better than sitting back and waiting for them to die.

Finally, I'd like to point out that my opponent's last argument especially is rife with errors.

Thank you for your time.

Vote Pro to stop the killing.
Vote Con to promote terrorism.
Hound

Con

Thank you.

In fear of death? If we're still talking about terrorists, then I'm fairly certain that they do not fear dying; after all, if you're talking about 9/11 terrorists, it's evident that they were not in fear of death. Since we're on that train now, let's think about this. Say you're a terrorist (sorry for this mental torture.) You want to make the Pentagon crumble. Plans have started, and your enemies want to know what you do so they may cease the plans. Since you had originally planned to die for this mission, what's taking a bit of torture in exchange for your plans succeeding? Just lie to save time and pain, and rinse and repeat! How DIABOLICAL! But, it CAN happen.

You're right, they may not cease their plans. It's unlikely, I'll even venture to say (but not an impossibility.) However, they might a
ACCELERATE their plans. Let's go back to my former scenario. Your friends know you're captured. They decide to be hasty and explode the bombs now. See how this works out? If they do stop, it's unlikely they'll abandon their mission before causing at least some sort of harm.

Terroosts lie and are lied to. They recruit through their fallacies and lie to gain advantages to carry out their plans. Since you brought up using torturing as a last-case scenario, let's roll with that. Say you caught a terrorist. So, what do? He's not cracking under this uber foolproof torturing system, so we is SKREWED! But seriously, just publicize that a terrorist was caught. Talk about endangering his life. See if that yields results (it would yield just the same if you tortured him.) No, torturing is not better than nothing. Interrogate him HUMANELY and threaten him. You don't have to waterboard him or anything (I wouldn't really feel like spilling my guts if I was too busy drowning and begging for air. I'd just lie, tbh.)

Lol... of course you'd have to train someone. These people would work with law enforcers. You want some idiot who signed up that could possibly kill this guy before any information was given? Fools would sign up.

The debt was just an example. Oh, a hunter talking about innocent life... (another discussion for another time.) But anyways, I'm not saying lives aren't important. I'm saying that spending funds and time on torturing is foolish when it is clearly unnecessary. Intimidation and fear is what should be preyed upon. Torture instigates lies.

Peace and torture should not be used together. Sorry, but no. Ah, so you're saying we should torture in order to achieve a cause, even if it's by any means necessary? Yeah, that's a lot better. Make them more afraid? They're not scared of us. That's WHY they're terrorists, they are fearless of us and wi do anything to harm us. You think torturing will do diddly about that? If anything, it'll arouse more hatred towards us (irony at it's best!)

Torturing isn't the only way to get information out. It's not like if we're not busy pounding someone to a pulp, we're not trying to investigate.

If you're talking about grammatical errors, I've seen quite a few of your own.

"Vote Con to promote terrorism"
Rofl. That's not even what I'm advocating. Lol.
Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Pro

Just because a few terrorists don't care about dying, it doesn't mean that all terrorists are ready to go die in a torture chamber. First of all, if you were the one charging in to die, then being captured itself would stop the plan. And lying to save pain, and then rinse and repeat? That's not possible. Torture brings pain, and when they realize you've lied, then they'll do worse and worse things to you. Plus, to terrorist, it's good to die if you kill an infidel, but to be tortured to death? That's not even honorable by the terrorists' standards. It CAN happen that they'll lie, but like I said before there's also a chance that you'll get correct information.

Sure, they may cause some harm, but it will still be substantially less harm than if they got to execute their entire plan. Plus, think of Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If they rush, they will make errors, and their plan will fail. Think roughly, oh , 7 months ago I think it was, there was a car bomb that failed to go off in New York. Now, that happened because all of the proper preparations weren't taken. In your revised scenario, you allow an opportunity for failure. Back to the New York incident. Put your place in my shoes(I will explain). My mother was up in New York that night. If that bomb had gone off, she could have been hurt or killed. Now, what if they had a prisoner who, if they had tortured them, would have given the information to stop the attempt. Now, if they had this ability, and passed it up because there was a chance that the terrorist wouldn't have cracked, you'd be pretty upset, wouldn't you? Point proven.

Sure they lie. It doesn't matter how they recruit people. So, we torture them and they don't crack. We may or may not be screwed, it depends on what information we want. Publication of capturing a terrorist and endangering his life would do nothing. Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay? Torturing IS better than nothing because with nothing, if the s**t hits the fan, people will feel bad for doing nothing. If they do torture and the s**t hits the fan, then at least they tried. Finally, interrogation and threats do nothing. Imagine this, your a terrorist, and get captured. Your capturers tell you that if you don't answer their questions, they'll beat you. You take a chance and refuse to answer, and they make the same threat again. You now realize that nothing will happen to you, and stay quiet. If they do beat you, however, then you're being tortured into compliance. Finally, water boarding isn't the only method of torture.

Okay, I should have been clearer. I was referring to a sign up list that is exclusive to the military.

Yeah, hunting is another discussion for another time. It will happen just as soon as we finish this debate, and my opponent can start it, assuming you are against hunting. Money is not a waste if we save lives, and my opponent has admitted that lives are important. So it's unnecessary to torture even if it saves lives? That's a very sadistic thought. Finally, it can instigate lies, but it can also instigate the truth.

Torture and peace can go hand in hand. We just need to step back in order to reach the goal. World peace is worth anything except total annihilation. If it requires torturing some of the world's lowest scum, then fine so be it. They aren't scared of us because we are weak spineless liberals. We set troops over there, but those troops won't fire unless fired upon, they won't fire at insurgents hiding behind women and children even if the women and children are there voluntarily, and we haven't bombed one building. We are like a fricken paper cut. Yea it hurts, but ultimately nothing bad happens. Frightening them using psychological warfare? Now that could work. Random bombings were terrorists are none to be. Shoot every enemy with a gun. Intercontinental ballistics. That will get the job done, but changing their government? No way. They are terrorists because they TERRIFY us, and we can't do anything because of poor judgment and morals in this situation. If we were the terrorists to them, you can bet your *** they'ed stop because they'd be TERRIFIED. I've already explained that they are fearless because we do nothing, so it doesn't matter how many of us die. They are safe. It will do something, it will help with the fear factor on our side. Plus, if they hate us more, they attack more. This gives 2 openings. 1) we can capture insurgents trying to quickly attack, but screwing up instead. 2) We can march into more countries with NATO and take over thus furthering our goals. If we are occupying more countries, then there are less safe havens for terrorists. Pleas explain the irony.

No, it's not the only way, but it's better than nothing, so torture still stands as a last resort.

I won't deny I have some grammatical errors. Even though I haven't seen them, I'm sure they're there. But I've got much fewer than you. Both of your entries have been rife with errors. It doesn't matter if you are using a touch screen, you can be more careful.

""Vote Con to promote terrorism"
Rofl. That's not even what I'm advocating. Lol."

No, that's not what you're advocating directly, but ultimately it is. Try to follow this.
Torture=getting the information
information=stopping terrorism
stopping terrorism=a chance at world peace
therefore,
torture=a chance at world peace

Plus, you deny that a vote for me(Pro) will stop the killing.

Vote Pro to stop the killing.
Vote Con to promote terrorism.
Hound

Con

Thanks.

Lolwat? Of course terrorists would be glad to die! Their accomplices are about to strike, and the terrorist that is captured is the enemy's link to them! Dying because of this is ESSENTIALLY DYING FOR YOUR CAUSE. Lying to save pain is possible. They would contain you to check your information. In that time period, you have time to heal and think. Then, they come back and ask more questions and continue. Logic? Nah. Worse and worse things may happen, but they cannot kill the terrorist or they lose their link. Lose the link, and we're gone. The terrorist is bound to know this. They're dying to allow their plans to be carried out. Essentially, they're dying to kill the infidels. You've contradicted yourself in this statement, "but like I said before there's also a chance that you'll get correct information." You've stated that it's possible that they'll lie. That means there's a chance for failure. Later on in your debate, you speak of Murphy's Law, which states that "anything that can go wrong will go wrong." CAN lie, CAN go wrong. And it WILL go wrong.

That was just a hypothetical. There's still chance for terror and you failed to address the fact that if they indeed ACCELERATE their plans, it wastes investigation time and the possibility of debunking the whole plan without having any casualties. Murphy's Law contradicts your entire debate. There's a chance the terrorist will lie, a chance that things will go wrong. That means that things WILL go wrong. That is what you used as a defense, right? Strange how it speaks strongly against you. Torturing is NOT the only way to try and solve something. If you didn't torture someone, it doesn't portray that you didn't try. At all.

"Sure they lie." "Terrorists are not liars from the beginning." They are lied to, and they lie to others. All from the beginning. (Another contradiction on your end.) I've said it before and I'll say it again, TORTURING IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE A CASE. If they even had a tiny CLUE, it could build from there. Torturing is not necessary in any shape or form, especially if you're dealing with someone who refuses to talk. If someone has a will strong enough to kill themselves over their beliefs, you think they'll crack under torture? Lolno.

"Who says you'd have to train someone? You could just get a list of people who would be willing to torture to save lives, and pull from that list at random. I know I could be on that list."
"Okay, I should have been clearer. I was referring to a sign up list that is exclusive to the military."

Clearer? Those are two completely different statements. You just changed your original thought.

...
So, we moved on from a discussion over whether we should torture terrorists to gain information to world peace? How does that even work? Eliminating all the terrorists in the world does not allow world peace. Also, world peace worth anything except total annihilation? Right, let's plunge the world into about ten more wars, kill millions of people, go through about another couple thousand Great Depressions, but it's all worth it if in a million years from now, we get world peace right? That's a Machiavellian way of thinking. So, because the troops have some sort of sense of morality, we're suddenly weak? Yes they're scared. Why do you think some of the most prominent terrorist organizations are STILL doing everything possible to evade capture? They're afraid, afraid there'll be detrimental ramifications if they're caught. Lol... we ARE terrorists to them. Our views terrify and offend them, which is why they're going all-out to ANNIHILATE us. You're misunderstanding hatred with haste. If there's enough hate behind a terrorist group, they'll concoct a plan so massive and detrimental, it could possibly be the greatest cataclysm of all time. You don't know the trouble these people go through to even get in the US, do you? They're not going to waste their bleak chances on haste. Yes, let's take over more countries. THE BIG BAD USA, HEAR US ROAR!!! That'll make us look GREAT as a nation, won't it? Right? .... Right? Lolno. That would ruin international relations (more than they already are.)

Torture has a chance for failure, which you say is unacceptable. It shouldn't even be a last resort using your logic.

Lol... both of your entries are brimming with errors as well. Since you're poking at me, I'll just point that out since I'm not usually a grammar hound.

How am I advocating terrorism, indirectly or not? I'm merely saying torturing is not the best means, and is even deemed unnecessary. Nowhere in my defense did I say that I wished to "promote terrorism."

What. I never said this would stop killings. Lolwat.

"Vote Con to promote terrorism"
There you go again. I'm not promoting terrorism; you brought up terrorists in your OP anyways. I'm saying torture is not needed and immoral, as well as ineffective. Nowhere did I state my advocacy of terrorism. Oh, and since you loved poking at my grammar, and even transgressed as to tell me that I should've been more careful, I'll just say this: you could atleast care about your own debate enough to look yours over. (like using the right form of "your," for example?)

I thank Blackhawk for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hard_Muscle_Guy_30 3 years ago
Hard_Muscle_Guy_30
Regarding blackhawk1331's comment:
Who says you'd have to train someone? You could just get a list of people who would be willing to torture to save lives, and pull from that list at random. I know I could be on that list. I have absolutely no problem with torturing a miserable, rotten, no good terrorist if it means that I could save some American civilians. I'd really be fine if it could save any civilians of any nationality. I'd feel worse if I didn't try, and innocent people died

I agree!!
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Can't wait.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Right. Should be fun.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
For a debate title, I suggest:
Resolve: Hunting Should be Illegal
You take Pro because you're against hunting, and I'll take Con because I'm all for hunting.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
So I'm assuming you agree with me on hunting for trophies.

Wats the resolve gonna be?
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Necessary meaning if only you hunt when it's VITAL (I'm talking life-threatening.) Yes, we'll de debating that, if you accept. I'll have to take a rain check on it, though.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
If by sported hunting you mean going out for trophies, then no, I'm against it. If you mean going out to have fun with friends or family, then yes I'm all for it. And as for necessary, I don't know what you mean by that. If you're saying that hunting's bad if we don't need it for survival, then I'm against you. I find it a necessary thing, though, to keep more in touch with the outdoors, and I use everything I can once I kill something.

And with torturing an innocent, it's kind of confusing. I agree that if there is reasonable doubt they are innocent, then don't torture them, but if that doubt exists, they wouldn't have been found guilty. When I said the torture of an innocent may be necessary, I was talking last resort when you think you're 100% positive they're guilty. Obviously never torture someone with reasonable doubt that they're innocent.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
It's fine, I know how I like to refute points even if the debate's ended, totally understandable. Yes, errors were present on both sides. Eh, what can we do; we're human after all.

I will comment on the statement you made that torturing an innocent may actually be necessary. Torture, if indeed ever is used as a last resort, at the very least should only be used if there is no spark of doubt about the authenticity of the charges. Incarcerating an innocent is not nearly as afflicting as torturing one.

I'm only against sported animal hunting and hunting when it is not necessary by any means. If you still want that debate topic, we'll have to do it some other time. I don't feel like dragging that debate out just yet. I'll challenge you when I'm up for it (just comment back affirming that you're a pro for sported animal hunting.)

Great debate, thanks.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
@Hound thank you for showing me some of the errors. Like I said, I know they exist, but just not in as great a quantity as in your debate.
I agree we shouldn't continue. I'm sorry I was, I just had to say a few more things.
Okay, since loon is cleared up I'll trust you're tellingthe truth, and retract that as an error, but there are many more. That's indesputible information.
And yea, I learned some but I think that overall torture can be justified in some cases. Terrorism being one of them.

For a next debate, I know you mentioned hunting, are you for or against hunting? If you're against it, then challenge me to a debate on hunting.

Thank you for pariticipating, the debate was fun.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
@ZackJarvis, the cut off I was referring to is in comments not the debate, and I only mentioned that because I noticed that when there is a cut off, grammatical errors occur.
Like I stated, life isn't fair. Plus, I never said he advocated terrorism until he did. I said a vote for him was a vote for terrorism whether you support terrorism or not. I said the information can save lives. Knowledge is power. I also admitted multiple times that a terrorist can lie, but there is always that chance that they tell the truth, and that's what justifies torture in some scenarios.

Finally, I never meant to continue the debate in terms of voting. In all of my arguments that continue the debate, I have said that the comments shouldn't be counted in voting. Hound is the only one to have stated that he was continuing the debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ErikMontague 6 years ago
ErikMontague
blackhawk1331HoundTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by ZackJarvis 6 years ago
ZackJarvis
blackhawk1331HoundTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
blackhawk1331HoundTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:32 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
blackhawk1331HoundTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
blackhawk1331HoundTied
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:14 
Vote Placed by Abreil 6 years ago
Abreil
blackhawk1331HoundTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by mds1303 6 years ago
mds1303
blackhawk1331HoundTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04