The Instigator
Diego_St.Clair
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rosalie
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Should torture be illegal?

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...
Rosalie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 73087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Diego_St.Clair

Con

I'd like to invite my friend Rosalie to this debate!
Rosalie

Pro

Thank you for instigating this debate.
Since Con didn't state any definitions I shall do so myself. I also will just be using this round for acceptance, since he didn't say so otherwise.

Torture: 1. the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something

2. something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience

Illegal:

1.Prohibited by law.

2.Prohibited by official rules.

I now await Con's argument. Good luck!

Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Diego_St.Clair

Con

Diego_St.Clair forfeited this round.
Rosalie

Pro

I have talked to my opponent, and understand that he is a very busy person. I ask the judges that they don't penalize him for his FF. I ask him to sate his case in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Diego_St.Clair

Con

Thank you everybody! I would like to start off with saying that this debate doesn't reflect my personal feelings, but just the points I believe would convince people that torture is a necessary evil.

Torture. Most people envision a scene of helpless people experiencing the worst kinds of pain possible. Torture can also be classified as merely locking a person in a cell for an indefinite amount of time, and telling them that if they don't comply, they will be kept in there for life. Is that wrong, if in fact the person being tortured is keeping secrets vital for safety? Another, more powerful scenario is where your own child is being kept somewhere that only the captured offender knows. If you do not get the child out in less than an hour, the building will self-destruct, leaving the child and any other people around dead. The offender will not speak. Is not torture to the greatest degree, even, not acceptable? By not responding to the questions, and by endangering lives, torture is completely acceptable in this case.
Rosalie

Pro

Thank you Con for your response.

As Pro, I will be arguing that torture should be illegal.

Since Con didn't inform us of what country we should make torture illegal, I will presume he means America.

I shall make my rebuttals.

Rebuttal #1
Con makes the argument that: "Torture can also be classified as merely locking a person in a cell for an indefinite amount of time, and telling them that if they don't comply, they will be kept in there for life. Is that wrong, if in fact the person being tortured is keeping secrets vital for safety?"
My main problem with this is that, 1) Allot of victims give false information due to the great deal of pain. They want the pain to stop, so they give us faulty information to stop the pain. This really leads us to nothing. The act of torture was uneccesary.
I will leave this rebuttal here, I will expand more in my next argument.
Rebuttal #2
Con then proceeds to say that "Another, more powerful scenario is where your own child is being kept somewhere that only the captured offender knows. If you do not get the child out in less than an hour, the building will self-destruct, leaving the child and any other people around dead. The offender will not speak. Is not torture to the greatest degree, even, not acceptable? By not responding to the questions, and by endangering lives, torture is completely acceptable in this case"
There is a major problem with this. As a civilian, you have no right to torture anyone. I mean, let's think about it, if you torture someone, your going to be put into jail because it's not your right to do so, its up to the authorities, then think about this, if you go into jail, you wont be able to see your child if they return. It makes no logical sense what-so-ever.



Argument 1: What America Stands For/Consequences of torture.

As Americans we all know about the Amendment's. We know that we are also know as "land of the free" we are known as a "peaceful" country and everyone and everything is "equal" But if we take a look at the Amendments, you will see that the 8th amendment completely disproves of such a thing.
"The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment for federal crimes. The amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the states from inflicting such punishment for state crimes, and most state constitutions also prohibit the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment."

So why should be hypocrites? there's other ways to punish them instead of committing a violent act. Why do we say one thing and do another? I mean we don't disregard any of the other Amendment's so why do we ignore the 8th? I mean, wouldn't people be mad if we ignored the 1st Amendment that supports our freedom of speech? Let's not even forget that torture is a violation of human rights.

So what about the Consequences?

Let's face it, you can't torture someone from another country and not expect their "friends" to come here, take someone from our country and then go torture them. How will that make you feel knowing that was your fault? They could do some other things much worse.

"Torture is not going to keep us safe. In fact, there is a strong likelihood that it will make us less safe, because the practice of torture results in extremism and a desire for revenge. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way of finding every single person plotting a terrorist attack even in a police state -- which is exactly what we will become if we try to swoop up anyone who might be a potential terrorist."

So why take the chance?


Source's:



Debate Round No. 3
Diego_St.Clair

Con

Diego_St.Clair forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Diego_St.Clair

Con

Diego_St.Clair forfeited this round.
Rosalie

Pro

Vote Pro :)
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Diego_St.ClairRosalieTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff