The Instigator
Muscle_Boy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Should soldiers torture their prisoners

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 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,903 times Debate No: 41896
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Muscle_Boy

Con

Torture in wartime:

The enemy prisoner is dressed naked, beaten, tied to a pole, given electric shock

is this kind of treatment ok?

(pro.-yes)
lannan13

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. Now I believe yes for quiet a few reasons.

Utilitariansism

Utilitariansims states that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... is key here, because say this prisoner is an Al-Qaeda member, his knowledge could contain who certain members are, were their next attack lies, or where their leader is. You see here if we torture one person to save the lives of many we are clearly justified in the amount of lives we save. We could have used torture say before 9/11 and imagain the innocent American lives that we would have saved.

All wounds heal.

One of the Marine Corps mottos is that "Swet dries, blood clotts, and bones heal." We can see in this motto that it justifies torture showing that no matter what happens humans will heal.
Debate Round No. 1
Muscle_Boy

Con

Torture in wartime:
The enemy prisoner is dressed naked, beaten, tied to a pole, given electric shock
is this kind of treatment ok?

NO DAMN it's not ok to torture.
When you inflict pain on your enemy, you become as bad as him.

Using torture will only ensure that the enemy, will use it on your buddies too..

now you don't want that, right?`
lannan13

Pro

First I'd like to fix the link from last round. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

My opponent states that torture will be used on our allies, but this is already assumed, because in the Marine Corps Knowledge handbooks it states that Marines might be tortured when captured by the enemy in what we call "Green Monsters." Secondly my opponent fails to address my points that I have brought out in Round 1 of Utilitarianism, showing that torture is justified, because it saves lives! Which is truely important in the long going. Think about this which is more important, the life of one man or the lives of many? Marines are taught that we work as a unit and that no one man is more important. This shows that torture overall in order to save lives is justified.
Debate Round No. 2
Muscle_Boy

Con

Torture makes soldiers sexually depraved

When a man has caused another man pain and humiliation by touching an electric wire to this sexual organs, we can never be considered part of the good society again
lannan13

Pro

My opponent brings up Sex in his last round. What my opponent does not know is that in Saudi Arabia they can capture their own citizens and torture them for no reason. The torture my opponent has describe is actually the same torture that they use. The people of Saudi Arabia still walk away from this and as I said before time heals all wounds. They eventually heal from this torture so my opponent's point here is irrelivant.


Secondly please extend across all of my previous arguements as my opponent has failed to answer them.
Debate Round No. 3
Muscle_Boy

Con

LOL many arab men, have strong sadistic fantasies, as it is.
Also in Saudi Arabia, a man who admits to having tortured, is consisered more masculine for the experience

Sexual torture in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.latamdaily.com...
It's a certain fact, that the soldier who first tries this abuse, this electric torture against a woman, and experiences the power rush it gives him, he cannot go back to screwing his wife gently.

Sure a lot of men, would like to try this, but not all will survive psycologiacally
lannan13

Pro

This is true, but as I stated before the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The needs of the thousands of Americans who died on 9/11 is more important then the sexual need of one man who's secrets can save many. I still extend my arguements. We can also see that the ends justify the means (http://www.economist.com...) such as if we continue to torture and something does come out we save lives. Like the NSA has said that they have prevent terrorist attacks by spying on many and Obama has comfirmed this (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). So my arguement still stands that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.
Debate Round No. 4
Muscle_Boy

Con

consider for a moment the victim:
broken, beaten, scared, hurt, humiliated, wrecked, his sexual organs a swollen mess of meat, covered with burns from the electrical generator and the even worse burns from the soldiers cigarets..

he cries, he will never be a man again

is that worth it?`

How young boys will you torture? 18, 16, 14 years?
lannan13

Pro

My oppoent brings up that we will be torturing young boys, but he again ignores the fact that the average age of terrorists are 26 (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...), which is above the ages my opponent brings up. He again ignores my utilitarianism agruement from round 1 so please extend this across the table.

Thank you and vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Merriam-Webster is my preferred dictionary.

The links eating words, is why it's best to use numbered citations instead of in text ones.
Posted by Muscle_Boy 3 years ago
Muscle_Boy
Yeah ;-)
are you for or against torture?
Posted by Dustinb2458 3 years ago
Dustinb2458
Interesting debate.
Posted by toamatt26 3 years ago
toamatt26
thefreedictionary.com is a search engine not a dictionary. Use Merriam-Webster
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
Muscle_Boylannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I really thought con would have some good points, but when he claims hurting an enemy makes you just as bad as him, I shouted at my computer. We have heros who must be as capable of violence as the enemy. The enemy uses their abilities on people who are not equal in strength. When you fight someone who is equal in strength, you can be considered a warrior.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
Muscle_Boylannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While I absolutely do not agree with Pro, or his arguments, Con failed to address or support any of his or his opponents previously addressed arguments. Pro, did a much better job at engaging with what his opponent was saying, while Con continually brought up points that were emotional in origin and had no sources to speak of. Argument and Sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Muscle_Boylannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not agree with Pros stance on torture, however his arguments were rational and not pleas to emotion. Also Pro had better conduct as he addressed the questions presented, while Con did not rebut Pros arguments. Pro had better grammar and his arguments were easier to read than Con's so points go to Pro. Sources points are split, as both quoted sources and Pro corrected his source which was admirable.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Muscle_Boylannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ARGUMENT: I highly disagree with pro's stance that time heals all wounds, however for some reason con failed to catch such a large error... R2 con makes an assertion instead of an argument. Stating his opinion in ALL CAPS, only demeans any value it might have. It pretty much went downhill from there, con going racist against the Arab people of the world (insisting they are not a part of society), calling soldiers sexual deviants, and outright saying that anyone involved in torture is as bad as Osama Bin Laden and other planners behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks "When you inflict pain on your enemy, you become as bad as him." SOURCES: These favor pro, not by too large a margin, but con intentionally overlooking evidence provided instead of refuting it, multiples the value of what pro has given (plus truth-worthy sources, like an .EDU site).