The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Torture, does it work?

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 76590
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




torture, does it work? it always works on people with something to lose but not extremists. according to the senate intel report, torture isnt effective and produces mostly fiction vs actionable intel.

see jon oliver's review of the USA's torture program then comment

there is nothing more american than a drunk man jumping into a christmas tree~LWTwJO;


Torture is a vital part of our national security and could have prevented numerous terrorist attacks. According to my opponent torture does not work on extremist, but who says that normal people aren't capable of performing terrorist attacks. Some people say that torture victims will say anything to get the torturing to stop. That anything is most likely the truth since the truth will definitely be first thing they will be thinking about. Even if they did lie we have the technology to see if they are truthful or not. I would trust more in our technological capabilities instead of some senate report.
Debate Round No. 1


The Senate Report is a summary of a 6700 page classified report detailing the enhanced interrogation measures used by various agencies following the 9/11 attacks to gain actionable intel from possible future attacks.
The report clearly shows not one enhanced interrogation episode produced actionable intel. That's like buying a car with no wheels to take you to work everyday.
If the program doesn't produce the designed effect then it should be redesigned and/or changed altogether.


If that is true then the senate report must have completely forgot about Osama Bin Laden. Al-Baluchi the detainee suspected of working for the al-Qaeda was tortured to get the information we desired. The Pakistani government has also been reported to have obtained useful information from al-Qaeda prisoners through the use of torture.
A majority of democrats serve on the senate intelligence committee, which were already against torture before the CIA was even charged. Therefore the senate report is unreliable because it is published from a liberal standpoint. Even if torture didn't work( which it does) then what would be the alternative.
Who's to say that these senators weren't bribed by an outside entity working with the al-Qaeda. Of course we wouldn't know about it since the media only supports democratic candidates.
Debate Round No. 2


The Senate Intel Committee has 15 members split 8 republicans vs 7 democrats and the chairman, Richard Burr, is a staunch conservative. Your argument that the committee is mostly liberal is malarkey; took under a minute to gain this knowledge. Their are also plenty of conservative media outlets that portray the report in a negative light specifically Fox news, as conservative as it gets.

The bi-partisan report on the enhanced interrogation program clearly details that torture (enhanced interrogation) doesn't produce actionable intel. I suggest reading the report here, then perhaps, you will make a more informed argument. For now, the evidence is in favor of torture not working as designed.

Full Senate Intel panel:
Richard Burr
North Carolina

Dianne Feinstein
Vice Chairman

James RischIdaho
Dan CoatsIndiana
Marco RubioFlorida
Susan CollinsMaine
Roy BluntMissouri
James LankfordOklahoma
Tom CottonArkansas

Ron WydenOregon
Barbara MikulskiMaryland
Mark WarnerVirginia
Martin HeinrichNew Mexico
Angus KingMaine
Mazie HironoHawaii


Here is some of the information my opponent used from A great nation must be prepared to acknowledge its errors. This report details an ugly chapter in American history during which our leaders and the intelligence community dishonored our nation"s proud traditions. Of course we must aggressively pursue international terrorists who would do us harm, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with the basic respect for human rights which makes us proud to be Americans. "The United States must not engage in torture. If we do, in an increasingly brutal world we lose our moral standing to condemn other nations or groups that engage in uncivilized behavior." /blogs/stanford-libraries-blog/2014/12/official-senate-cia-torture-report#sthash.FbdzOrbF.dpufn
This paragraph basically says that if the United States participates in torture the rest of the world will follow us and act in an uncivilized manner. The world already acts in an uncivilized manner. Isis beheads their captives. We hardly do anything that can compare to that. So it's no excuse to stop the use of enhanced interrogation just because we fear what other countries will do to us. These terror groups already hate America and won't stop till theirs nothing less. If they don't treat their prisoners of war with respect why should we do the same. Of course our use of torture doesn't even compare to what they do. It's still humane and effective.
Also you never answered my question. If we stop the use of torture then what will be the alternative. Truth serum definitely won't work. Visit at
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by eldecrok 2 years ago
Nice Vid
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't refute the senate report and uses unfounded arguments to argue against it, leaving me with one uncontested reason to vote con. Pro should have looked for some more sources online to support his case. Thus I vote con