The Instigator
ifellover
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
chainmachine
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Should torture be used as a method of interrogation

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 2 votes the winner is...
chainmachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,766 times Debate No: 21195
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

ifellover

Con

Let me begin by stating that the burden of proof is upon both participants. This is an open debate for anyone to take part. I would advise that we avoid reference to legal statutes or precedent as it is possible that the participants may not be subject to the same legal system.

Torture is defined as: The act committed by a public official (or someone with the official's acquiescence) of intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental suffering on any person anywhere in the world, with the intention of coercing complicit behaviour within the victim or another person.

The questions that should be addressed are as follows:
- Can the evidence taken from interrogation be truly relied upon?
- Are there points where it is appropriate to use torture as a method of interrogation?
- If so, should there be restrictions on the level of torture applied?

Whilst, I would gladly wish to play devil's advocate to this debate, I must categorically state that I am against torture on any level. I will address each of the questions in turn and welcome constructive debate on these points.

Can evidence from torture be truly relied upon?
The answer is no. The infliction of force (either physical or mental) has the intended effect of making the victim unbearably uncomfortable so that they are in a position of willingness to confess or reveal information. What happens if they have no information to reveal? They are placed under a greater degree of torture. The result is that only one answer can be obtained from the process of torture - and that answer is what the interrogator wishes to hear.
Indeed, how is the interrogating office meant to determine whether an innocent victim has supplied false information, or whether a guilty victim has supplied true information?

Are there points where it is appropriate to use torture as a method of interrogation?
I imagine my opponent will cite threats of immediate terrorism or atrocities as suitable situations to invoke torture as a method of determining when and where the act will be committed and by whom. Ignoring the accuracy issues I have discussed above, these circumstances are often relevant at points of high national tension and fear. Is it truly the appropriate time to introduce a restriction upon freedoms? Have we not seen in history (e.g. Nazi Germany) how times of national fear have sparked restrictions upon fundamental freedoms? Should we not protect these no matter the cost?

Should there be restrictions on the level of torture applied?
This question is heavily weighted in favour of my opponent to discuss; it is difficult to make a statement without a comment to respond to.

Torture, as a tool, as the appeal of providing a method of retrieving information that from individuals which are popularly viewed as being the 'enemy'. It is my submission, that a state allowing the use of torture allows a restriction upon justice that enables an un-elected and un-vetted state official to act as police officer, judge, and jury. This is surely an insult to the principle of separation of powers that many democracies value as a fundamental aspect of their constitution.
chainmachine

Pro

I think your argument is based around one point, Non reliable information given. This is an issue that is short and sweet.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

These are multiple instances of torture used getting Legitimate information.

That is my refute, please go on with your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
ifellover

Con

ifellover forfeited this round.
chainmachine

Pro

Due to my opponent forefiting this round i deem he has admitted i am correct since he did not provide refutes. Meaning i will simply list refutes on his opening statement since i have no refutes on his argument since he did not post any.

.I Since i listed multiple times torture has been effective you argument about it not being doesn't have much of a standing anymore.

CONCLUSION

My opponent simply did not reply so i have proven his argument was debunked. I urge a vote pro!!!
Debate Round No. 2
ifellover

Con

ifellover forfeited this round.
chainmachine

Pro

I would like to ask my opponent to post a argument since I cannot refute any claims.
Debate Round No. 3
ifellover

Con

ifellover forfeited this round.
chainmachine

Pro

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by chainmachine 5 years ago
chainmachine
I would like to ask that no one votes on this debate since my opponent did not argue.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Define torture, water boarding? And to whom, citizens? Foreign terrorists? Non citizens with work visas? Immigrants?
Posted by ifellover 5 years ago
ifellover
@THEBOMB - No you were right - I completely forgot to add the definition. I added it after your comment. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
*face palm* how did i miss the definition....oh well....

I may take this
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
too many arguments proposed for me each one highly debatable.
Posted by ifellover 5 years ago
ifellover
The act committed by a public official (or someone with the official's acquiescence) of intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental suffering on any person anywhere in the world, with the intention of coercing complicit behaviour within the victim or another person.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
define torture
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
ifelloverchainmachineTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ifelloverchainmachineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF