Torture Can Be Acceptable
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent will attempt to disprove my stance.
First Round will be for Acceptance.
Oh and could you define torture please.
I believe the drawbacks to torture are widely known. Most believe there are better options for information extraction than torture. I agree with these people, however, that doesn't stop me from advocating the use of torture for certain means in specific scenario(s). I shall be providing a scenario, and justifying the use of torture in this scenario.
The CIA has captured a member of a terrorist group that is going to be launching an attack on American soil within 2 days. Beyond the knowledge of the immenence of the attack, and the man in custody's association with the terrorist group, and the fact that he is likely to have useful information, they have very little information.
The CIA has had this terrorist for weeks now, attempting to extract useful information through repeated questioning and offering of rewards for compliance. The terrorist has resisted, offering them no useful information.
Now the CIA has run out of time. They can either give up, or use the last-ditch option: torture.
If the CIA refrains from torturing the terrorist, they have no information to stop the attack.
If the CIA does torture the terrorist, they have a chance for more information that will help stop the attack.
Lives are at stake, and the pain of one man in order to attempt prevention of loss of life is absolutely justifiable. How would the CIA explain themselves to the American people if the attack was successfully executed, and hundreds died?
As you can see, the information acquired from torture should not be considered accurate and therefore the information given by the terrorist in your scenario should not be considered reliable and the chances are it wouldn't stop the actual attack.
False information is often gained from torture  and so if the information is acted upon there is a good chance it will put even more lives at risk if the intelligence is acted upon especially because terrorists in custody are often still radicalized  and still want to inflict harm on civilians regardless.
Further more I very much doubt your scenario would ever happen, as the ex-war correspondent and respected commentator Christopher Hitchens says: "favourite experimental scenario"the man knows where the bomb is, put the hooks into him swiftly is actually a contingency almost impossible to visualise. I certainly know of no such real-life case" .
(see chapter 3)
While it is not guaranteed that the terrorist will talk, it is 100% guaranteed the terrorist will not talk if no action is taken, and as I've elaborated in my scenario, torture is the only applicable option in this scenario. My opponent says chances are the information won't stop the attack. The use of the word 'chances' indicates that it is not certain that there will be no useful information. Given that it is not certain, and loss of life hangs in the balance, the proposed likelihood of a fruitless interrogation is an acceptable risk to take. When I proposed this scenario I knew torture wasn't a wholly reliable means of acquiring information, but I also know that there is a chance of it being useful, which I have argued is a chance worth taking, and that, in this scenario, it is the only option left.
My opponent also says that false information is often gained from torture. I do not believe this should deter the last ditch option of torture in this scenario. It's not as if the terrorist says the attack will be in Philedelphia and suddenly every intelligence agency member, police officer, and soldier is going to head over to Philadelphia, leaving the rest of America unguarded. What's more realistic is that teams will act upon the information, while the rest of the intelligence community continues looking for other possibilities.
Next my opponent talks about the unlikely nature of my scenario. Even if a war reporter thinks my scenario is impossible, it doesn't matter. The debate is centered around the justification of an action taken in a hypothetical event. The only time Christopher Hitchens' words would matter is if this was a debate over "This Scenario is Likely to Occur".
Thanks for reading.
I will argue that torture is akin to guesswork, that being the chances of gaining accurate information from torture is the same as gaining accurate information of torture and that the chance of prolonged psychological damage to the victims of torture  makes guess work a better final option.
Now I will have to back up my assertion that torture is no more effective than guess work. First (as far as I can tell from half a day of solid googling) there are no studies which have passed peer review in psychology journals that actively show torture as an effective way of gathering information. This means that you must assume torture is more effective, I have nothing to prove, you must prove that torture is effective. This makes torture no better than a guess, comparable to dowsing in a last ditch attempt to find water in the desert.
Furthermore what does it say about us as a society if we resort to the same tactics as the terrorists in our fight against them, torture blurs the line between us and the terrorists.
As for the idea of us becoming what we're fighting, there is one thing to note. In this scenario, whoever is torturing this terrorist is doing it to protect people who are not a part of the war, they're just ordinary citizens. If a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda tortures, it's for the aim of victimizing innocents. Basically what I'm saying is the ends make us different. We're torturing to save lives, and they're torturing to gain information to take lives.
As for your justification for torture saying that is to protect people as opposed to torture to terrorize people. This doesn't work as it simply sets a precedent which validates a horrific act.
So as I hope I have shown torture is simply not an effective way of gathering information and should not be used, even as a last resort.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Grandbudda 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Intriguing debate but in the end I feel that Pro had the best argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.