The Instigator
estersb
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kffishs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 227 times Debate No: 65277
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

estersb

Pro

1.Torture is the practice of forcing someone to say or do something or the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will.
2.Some instances of torture are to gain information, to terrorize some political group, or to gratify a desire on the part of the torturer to inflict suffering and to exercise power.
3.It is never permissible intentionally to inflict severe pain or severe harm on someone unwilling, unless the pain/harm is intended for their benefit, as a punishment, as part of a legitimate war, or to prevent the individual from causing severe pain or harm to innocents
4. Torture is a means of preventing terrorism and terrorist acts.
5.Torture is more humane than what terrorists do to people they capture.
6.Moral is a standard that is acceptable in behavior.
7. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
8. There are some cases of minimally, morally justified torture.
Premise four is controversial because it is just one of many means that that torture prevents. Premise five is controversial because it depends on perspective. Some people may see it as more humane while others may see it as less humane. Premise seven is controversial because it's kind of a vague statement that could have two possible meanings. One could be interpreted emotionally while the other could be interpreted physically. Those that are controversial could be true if provided with more examples and a clearer explanation of the statements.
kffishs

Con

1. Torture is considered to be the deliberate infliction of severe painful distress, where the person undergoing the procedure is helpless, in order to leave the person no choice but to give into the demands of the torturer.
Human Beings are entitled to their own beliefs. Torturing a person for the sake of disagreeing with their belief does not make their belief depart.
2. Torture in most instances is abused and unnecessary. When torturing someone, there is no guarantee that the person being tortured has correct or accurate information. When torturing someone, it habitually transpires that the torturer gets very caught up into the torture that they go beyond the limits, therefore making it murder.
Torture is not always used In circumstances. Just because someone is tutored does not mean it will prevent acts of terrorism.
3. Her claim for number five too vague.
4. Moral is a standard for acceptable or not acceptable behavior with in society.
5. Claim number seven is Irrelevant to the argument.
6. Therefore, torture is not minimally morally justified.
Debate Round No. 1
estersb

Pro

Torture is not always considered to be severe pain it can vary in different ways which makes it justified in some cases. Torture is a way for the torturer to simply get information out of the person in order to save a life or save lives. It all comes down to the matter of human life. Torturing one's life to save many other lives is acceptable .For one the victims whose lives are at risk have done nothing to deserve harm whereas the person in charge of causing of harm has done some evil and should get what they've given or are going to give. Torture is only justified in some cases because there are cases where people torture just to torture and there's no actual purpose towards it. When someone does hold information that could possibly threaten people that person is given the chance to come clean with the truth but if not they will suffer the consequence in order to get information out. This is ultimately justified because they are given the chance to come clean but whether they take advantage of this chance is up to them.
kffishs

Con

Just because someone is being tortured does not necessarily mean they have intent to harm other innocent people. People are tortured all the time because of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. "It"s the whole concept of what goes around comes around." This is irrelevant to the argument, this concept doesn"t covenant with whether or not torture is minimally morally acceptable. Human beings are entitled to their own beliefs; societies are created as a result of that. People with the same beliefs join together and form a society, where they share the same values and beliefs. You have agreed with me that torture is abused and unnecessary. If a person was tortured and no information was gained then why was that person tortured in the first place? The torturers abused their power, to find a random innocent person to torture for fun. This is not morally justified. When a person does not comply with the torturer because they never had that information in the first place, they are killed because of anger and fear. When a person gets killed through this process, it is not torture, it is murder, and murder is not morally acceptable in society.
Debate Round No. 2
estersb

Pro

estersb forfeited this round.
kffishs

Con

kffishs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
estersb

Pro

estersb forfeited this round.
kffishs

Con

kffishs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.