Torture is ethical when it is 100% sure that torturee has life-saving information. (Copy 2)
Debate Rounds (3)
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
"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.
you suck if you think tourture is ever ethical vote con pro didnt do no arguemt
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided arguments while con forfeited and had terrible spelling.
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.