The Instigator
SocialistRI82
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
revleader5
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Security vs. Law: Torture (pro is for law, con for torture)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,034 times Debate No: 887
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (13)

 

SocialistRI82

Pro

I would like for someone to take up the cause of security in this case. Tell me under what circumstances it is warranted, and why we should look beyond the law. Feel free to include arguements for wireless taping, and the detainees treatment (for I will be bringing it up). Basically justify the need for these measures in light of the war on terror.
revleader5

Con

Please tell me exactly what laws we are breaking.

Under the constitution we have the right to hold prisoners for 24 hours without setting a trial date EXCEPT in times of invasion, rebellion, or war.
Debate Round No. 1
SocialistRI82

Pro

At no point did I mention or argue that the detainees remand was illegal or anything else. I am talking about torture, degrading treatment, the wireless tapping, and the Patriot Act. The supreme court already ruled that the detainees must be given trials and charged. There is no sense in argueing a point that I have not even brought up. The above issues are what I am looking to debate. I think its a clear and simple debate that I have posed. Lets not get off course with debate about things that are not the issue.
revleader5

Con

I beleive that if there is a criminal in custody, that the government has a right to torture them for information. The mistreatment of 1 criminal is worth the saving of 1 innocent life. So if it means one criminal getting beaten, and 10,000 people live, I'm ok with that.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialistRI82

Pro

So dispite international treaties against it, and its proven ineffectiveness you still advocate it? So apparently you have nothing against them torturing our prisoners? Beheading them? and so forth?
revleader5

Con

I don't beleive in beheading them. Killing without a trial is immoral and stupid. Killing the guy who knows where the bomb is doesn't make sense, and is WRONG! Nobody criticizes Iraqi surgeons who torture our men, they run the country, but aren't elected. Just because our people run the country, yet are elected makes it wrong? Nobody understands how irrational Middle Eastern politics truly is. We must level the playing field or else we will have tons of innocent troops die because nobody would punch Mr.Terrorist in the head.
Debate Round No. 3
SocialistRI82

Pro

I think your rhetoric about "punching mr. terrorist" is misguided. There are plenty of interrogation methods that are far more successful, and efficient in getting ACURATE information that do NOT involve any level of torture. We are fighting this war on terror on the basis that they are attacking our freedom and our democracy. How can we still claim this if we are going to employ the types of behaviour that we criticize them for? You should ask France how well torture worked for them in Algiers. Ended up emboldening the resistance movement and in the end the information proved flawed and inaccurate. We are supposed to be the MORAL and JUST society, so how could anyone make any positive argument for the use of torture? It's only people like you who have no understanding of the military, history, or of torture itself who would advocate its use. Sen. McCain who himself endured years of brutal torture has spoken out sharply against its use. History has shown us that it does nothing more than enhance the recruiting for, and cause of the resistance (terrorist) movements. So in essence you claim that it will prevent somehow 1,000's of lives being lost may be true in the short term, but in the long term you have created a new class of terrorists drawn to the cause by the methods you advocate. Hence more fighters equals more potential for death, and destruction. By the way you can't have it both ways. If it's OK for us to do, then you should have no problem with them doing it to our soldiers. Your argument would be similar to saying, "hey the German's shot 100 of our guys surrendering, so we should do the same." No matter if they employ torture or not, that should not be the basis for you advocating its use. International treaties prevent it, international morals prevent it, and rational thought by intelligent people prevent it.

-Also what do you think of warrantless wiretapping, and the patriot act?
revleader5

Con

I don't beleive in warrantless wiretapping or the patriot act. Your debate topic says nothing about that. As con, it is torture, not invasion of privacy. Don't try to twist your argument.

So anyway, you have never given any alternatives. If there are so many good ones as you said, why didn't you list any. I'll go out on a limb here with a crazy theory of why you didn't- You didn't have any so you just said there are a bunch of them knowing that it was the 4th round and you wouldn't have to answer to it because it was your last argument. Now you'll put a crying comment with maybe 2 or 3 crummy alternatives and say thar you DID have alternates.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
Don't forget the human aspect of it. Which is no different from any period of time.
Posted by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
Do not forget the religious aspect though. That makes it very different form WWII
Posted by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
Well apparently I am living in Nazi Germany where the rules of the world no longer exist. A world were morality, and basic reasoning are non-existant. Then again people like you who are, and will never be involved in the fighting thats going on, the interrogations, or anything to do with this topic in my mind are speaking out of ignorance and lack of experience and knowledge on the subject. All is fine in Candyland, USA or wherever you live. When your friends and family are being held by foriegn countries I hope the people there and their governements don't share the same nazi views. Heres an alternative, one used by the allies during WWII which proved to be the most successful method yet tried. Befriending them. During WWII the allied interrogators would play cards with them, talk to them, anything. Over periods of time information would be given voluntarily. But then again since as American's we must be BIG STRONG TOUGH GUYS who beat people up and we don't care what anyone thinks aren't really capable of learning from history. Instead we'll repeat the failure that torture brings. Good job. Tell me when your family member is on the rack will they share your views on torture? No sense in debating this issue with an argument so ignorant.
Posted by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
zarul, you haven't heard ANY of the news stories where Iraqi insurgents beheaded American soldiers? You must be kidding or lying!
Posted by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
Interesting. I challenge you to post some good alternates to torture in the comments section, and you post a comment just repeating your argument.
Posted by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
I am argueing that torture is a flawed technique for attaining intelligence. As I pointed out the French have greater experience than the US and they have thoroughly concluded its ineffectiveness. They even went as far as to say that it futhered their difficulties on the ground in Algiers. We are a "civilized", "moral", and "just" country according to Bush, yet we are willing to throw these virues to the wind? It makes us UNCIVILIZED, IMMORAL, and UNJUST, which is what he has called the people we are fighting. We have laws that say it's wrong, ILLEGAL, and immoral. Both internationally (GENEVA: which the US Supreme court has ruled these "combatants" are protected under) and domestically (McCain's anti-torture bill) which are supposed to prevent us from doing such. I find the irony in that during Vietnam 3 US Army soldiers were court-martialed and imprisoned for water boarding VC operatives. Yet 40 years later all of a sudden this is an acceptable technique?
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
Hey revleader, just wondering, do you have any links to " Iraqi surgeons who torture our men"?
Posted by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
Revleader is certainly making a good point....lol

you argued the wrong question with me and you're doing it again.

The debate is about torture!!! not imprisonment....lol
Posted by zarul 9 years ago
zarul
So are you proposing a ban on anything that can be construed as torture, or at least arguing for such a ban?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 8 years ago
pcmbrown
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 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 aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 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 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 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 lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
SocialistRI82revleader5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03