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

Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information. (Copy 2)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 41990
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I would like to debate the ethics of torture in a very specific theoretical scenario.

I will be debating the PRO side, as in PRO-torture(in this specific scenario).

Please skip the accepting rounds, etc, and begin with arguments. Thanks!


US Gov has in their custody a man named John. John is a known terrorist. Assume that the US Gov is 100% sure that John has information about multiple bombs in major cities which will soon explode, killing thousands. John has admitted to knowing this information multiple times, and the US Gov has proven that he knows it through various other sources. Furthermore, intelligence from John's home country, Terroristlandia, indicates that in the past, when John was tortured for information, he spilled very valuable information which was accurate, and saved lives. Let us assume that torturing John WOULD save lives.

I argue that in this case, torturing John is ethical. I would like for somebody to convince me otherwise.

Please keep in mind: I am using a scenario in which we are 100% sure that the torturee has life-saving information. Torturing those who "might" have life saving information is another debate for another day. I had to repost this debate because my last opponent would argue that we cannot know for sure if somebody has information worth torturing for. Yes, in real life, it is unlikely that we would know for sure if John has info. BUT in this scenario we are assuming that we are 100% sure. Arguing that we can never really be sure is invalid.

Thank you for accepting my challenge!


torture is never ethical
Debate Round No. 1


"torture is never ethical"


I believe torture is almost never ethical. I would argue that only in a scenario where it is proven that the torturee posseses life-saving information, torture is justified. Hence my scenario.


19debater19 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I wish you hadn't accepted my debate if you were not going to debate me. Please award the points to me since my opponent has forfeited.


you suck if you think tourture is ever ethical vote con pro didnt do no arguemt
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MysticMansion 2 years ago
Unfortunately the person debating as to the unethical nature of torture began with the word ALMOST ALWAYS for which he should be ashamed.

Torture is always wrong do the fact that for man to behave in a civilized fashion he must believe in the inherent dignity of mankind. This inherent dignity must belong to each and every individual or it is for no one.

When one individual tortures another person just because that person differs from him in loyalty or beliefs then the torturer becomes guilty of attempting to deny the dignity of each individual person by the very fact of his treatment of his victim. The dignity of man is founded by the fact that mankind is made in the image and likeness of God, and Jesus act of dying on the cross for our freedom from sin was based on the individual as well as mankind in general.

God is offended by the act of attempting to rob someone of their dignity. The refusal to treat any human person with less dignity then they deserve as members of the human race is sinful. The victim is always a victim and innocent of the evil of the tortures he or she must endure. Torture is only one acts that robs the individual victim of his God given dignity. There are many such acts like participation in pre-marital sex and homosexual activity just to name a few.

There is no loss or cost to the dignity of another by pointing out their sin. It is in fact a spiritual work of mercy. It is called instructing the ignorant.

Instructing the ignorant is based on beginning with an act of Charity in assuming that the reason that the person is involved in sin is due to their lack of knowledge and not their desire to offend God and lose their soul. After charitably assuming their ignorance of God's Will you kindly provide the knowledge that they have demonstrated by their participation in sin, that they lack. This is a Christian act to help those who do not know their responsibilities to God.
Posted by migont 2 years ago
Actually ethical principles, such as Kant's philosophy, can be interpreted quite subjectively. Furthermore, different ethical principles lead us to different conclusions. I think this question is a very good topic for debate.
Posted by toamatt26 2 years ago
Hey buddy,

Ethical is "of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these."

It's not an opinion. If it is not ethical, it isn't relating to moral principles.
Posted by autodidact 2 years ago
i find debates on scenarios that are not reasonably realist to be a waste of time as such a debate as this one has no real life application.
Posted by Muscle_Boy 2 years ago
To bad that I can't take part in your debate, cuz i've already clamped the wires from an electric generator to John's balls, and am getting that terrorist information right now
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided arguments while con forfeited and had terrible spelling.