The Instigator
Instigator0846
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AizenKnaik
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should torture be allowed?

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 1 vote the winner is...
AizenKnaik
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,876 times Debate No: 51581
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Instigator0846

Pro

Torture should be allowed.
AizenKnaik

Con

Torture should not be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
Instigator0846

Pro

Instigator0846 forfeited this round.
AizenKnaik

Con

Pro has forfeited the round. Anyway, to support my claim, I'm still going to post my argument.

Definition of torture (U.S. Code: Title 18: Section 2340)
The United Nations definition of torture is more restrictive and includes the following ingredients:
"Inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering
"Doing so deliberately
"For any of the following reasons (this is an illustrative list, not an exclusive list)
"To obtain information or a confession from the person being tortured or from someone else
"To punish that person for something they, or another person, has done or is suspected of having done
"To intimidate or coerce that person or another person
"For any reason 'based on discrimination'
"A 'public official' or a 'person acting in an official capacity' must either inflict the pain, instigate the action, or agree to it being carried out
"This element isn't essential to the ethical debate - an act might still be torture without 'public officials' being involved
"The actions must not be part of a 'lawful sanction'
"This is a pretty obvious loophole and is not part of the ethical debate - one might want to argue that a legal punishment amounted to torture and so ought to be made illegal.
United States law gives more details of precisely what forms of mental torment should count as torture:
'severe mental pain or suffering' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
"the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
"the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
"the threat of imminent death
"the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Why should torture not be allowed?
For this part, I"ll only present three reasons. I"ll reserve the other reasons for the succeeding rounds.

Disrespect for human dignity
Humans are created equally. As it implied, they should be treated equally. Similarly, they should treat themselves commensurate to other individual. Every individual has the slightest dignity emblazoned in their well-being.That dignity should not be detached and should rather be preserved. Torture, based from the provided definition, is an act of inflicting severe pain or suffering to the individual, may it be physical or mental. That particular act of inflicting pain or suffering is actually tantamount to being disrespectful to human dignity. If the dignity of a person is deprived, chances are that particular person will turn against the society and tend to be cruel. If that would happen to every individual, the society will be in chaos and also, it would trigger wars between or inside the nations.

It is ineffective, immoral and illegal
First, torture is ineffective. In a general sense, torturing someone or something is ineffective. However cruel a person is, there would still a sliver of guilt that would emanate from its soul. Whatever he"s accomplished through torturing is clearly not acceptable so the tendency is, it won"t give him the ultimate satisfaction he is trying to find out. Secondly, it is immoral. Obviously, torturing a person is immoral and inhumane. Immorality causes poverty. It is money which makes us moral. And last but not the least, torture is illegal. Obviously, inflicting harm to other people is illegal. There is no such thing as legality in maiming people especially those who are innocent. Also, no law-abiding court accepts testimony or confessions gained under torture.

Loss of innocent lives
Torturing people who are innocent could lead to bestiality of the torturer. Meaning to say, the torturer will be nothing but a man of cruel deeds. No lives of innocent people should be threatened. We have given the right to preserve our lives. We should not disrupt that particular right given to us by torturing innocent people who have similarly given the rights as well.

By that, I would end this round.

Thank You!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Instigator0846

Pro

Instigator0846 forfeited this round.
AizenKnaik

Con

Pro has forfeited the round again. Anyway, this is the last argument that I'll be posting, assuming that pro will forfeit the next and the last round. So meaning to say, I'm not going to post any arguments after this.

As Stephen Biko once said, "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."

Torture is one of the most serious abuses of human rights. Generally torture is referred to as" "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person", for a purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion, "or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind".

Torture was used as a governing tool since the dawn of human history. The Law of Hammurabi- the oldest set of laws dates back to around the 18th century B.C. constitutes the famous "eye for an eye" principle, which allowed inducing physical punishment." Torture was used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat.

Torture is about reprogramming the victim to succumb to an alternative exegesis of the world, proffered by the abuser. It is an act of deep, indelible, traumatic indoctrination. (Psychology of Torture " Sam Vaknin). Torture can be physical or psychological or sometimes a combination of both. Torture methods are designed to prolong the victims" pain and fear for as long as possible without leaving visible evidence.

Although the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions agree not to torture protected persons (enemy civilians and POWs) in armed conflicts torture has been practiced in many parts of the world and in almost all major military conflicts.

Torture has profound and long lasting physical and psychological effects. Torture is a form of collective suffering. It does not limit to the victim. The victims" family members and friends are also affected. Based on new research psychological and physical torture have similar mental effects. Often torture victims suffer from Depression, Adjustment Disorder PTSD , DESNOS (Disorders of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified) , Somatoform Disorders and sometimes psychotic manifestations. Based on new research psychological and physical torture have similar mental effects.

Torture is a Double-edged Sword
Torture is a doubled edged sword that can harm not only the victim but the perpetrators as well. Many people who engage in torture have various psychological deviations and often they derive sadistic satisfaction. For a considerable degree, torture fulfills the emotional needs of the perpetrator and willingly he engages in these activities. They lack empathy and their victim"s agonized painful reactions, screaming and pleading give them a sense of authority and feelings of superiority.

Under international law, torture is considered one of the most heinous of crimes. A civilized society should eliminate the endemic practice of torture. The torture affects the victims as well as their family and in the final account, the entire Society. Torture affects the county"s economy, image and the spirit. It is a systematic annihilation of the physical and psychological well-being of the public. It shakes the every foundations and dignity of the society.

Effects of torture on Terrorism
In a recent speech to the Harvard community, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, discussed both the ethical and practical implications of torture. His point was simple: not only is torture inherently wrong, but it also has the opposite effect than is intended.
Functional arguments regarding torture have typically taken a back seat to moral and ethical discussions. And when the practicality of torture is discussed it is often with regard to torture in general rather than specific situations. Torture doesn't work, its critics say, because the information acquired through torture is often times false. Victims will simply admit to whatever their torturers want in order to stop the pain, and thus the information culled from such practices is never truly verifiable.
However, there has been little analysis of how torture affects dynamics between Arabs and Americans in the Middle East and what its larger implications are for the War on Terror. Some of the strongest proponents of the practice defend it on the grounds of the "ticking time bomb" scenario. Torture, they say, should not be a widespread practice but should be used in situations when it can save a large of number of lives that are immediately at risk (a ticking bomb, for example). This argument is particularly applicable to the case of terrorism, since stopping an imminent terrorist attack is a perfect example of a situation dire enough to warrant the use of torture. Torture, then, by this argument will serve to curb terrorism and will thwart future terrorist attacks.
The flaws with this line of reasoning are numerous. Without going into too much depth, these arguments fail to clearly specify what exactly constitutes a "ticking time bomb" situation. What if the attack is likely to occur tomorrow? What about next year? What if the prisoner doesn't know anything directly about the imminent threat but knows the whereabouts of someone who does? What if he simply knows the cousin of the friend of the neighbor who might have some information about an upcoming attack? Clearly the dilemma of the slippery slope is a primary one in this model.
Yet the more profound flaw with this justification is that it fails to account for the effects of torture on the opinions and mindsets of Arab citizens. The discovery of the United States' use of torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib provoked something of a public outcry among many Arab citizens. The perceived hypocrisy and racism of such practices increased the already existing hostility between American forces and Arab locals. Such hostility is much more likely to foster further terrorism than torturing is likely to thwart future attacks. Intelligence regarding terrorist plans is rarely acquired from forced confession but more often from anonymous tips or willing admissions given in a spirit of good faith. But the use of torture completely undermines the development of any sort of positive relationship between Americans and Arabs and in this way decreases the likelihood that such willing admission will occur. In addition, heightened hostility and increased tensions will induce more Arabs to resort to terrorism or guerrilla warfare as an outlet for their anger and frustration. Such a response is quite contrary to what we ought to be working toward in the region and, as such, we ought to completely relinquish the use of torture against Arabs, whether they be terrorists or not.

We can extrapolate from evidences presented above how Torture is strictly condemned by people and society from different perspectives. Foremost, torture will give way to cruelty and 'unnecessary' power. It should not be reprimanded because, whatever the reason in doing so, it still appears to be inhumane.

With that, I end this debate. Had fun debating with you even though you forfeited almost all rounds. Learn a lot of things. Maybe next time you should post your argument when you are required to do so. By that means, the debate will be more lively and fun! Anyway, thanks for inviting me to debate this topic! :))

http://groundviews.org...
http://hir.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Instigator0846

Pro

Instigator0846 forfeited this round.
AizenKnaik

Con

AizenKnaik forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Instigator0846

Pro

Instigator0846 forfeited this round.
AizenKnaik

Con

AizenKnaik forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ScrinTech 3 years ago
ScrinTech
@Auxo Indeedly So.
Posted by CrazyCowMan 3 years ago
CrazyCowMan
Torture should not be allowed.
Posted by Auxo 3 years ago
Auxo
Riveting arguments
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
Instigator0846AizenKnaikTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had more FF's