The Instigator
EvanK
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Torture should be legal

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 4 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,178 times Debate No: 24081
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

EvanK

Pro

I will be arguing that it should be legal for our military to use torture on terrorist suspects if they see it is necessary. First round is acceptance. My opponent must show why tortue by our military shouldn't be condoned. By torture, I'm mainly talking about waterboarding, but any form of torture deemed necessary by our military will also be argued.

Please keep it respectful, no trolling, no semantics, just a fun and interesting debate.
Contra

Con

I accept. Torture is immoral. Present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
EvanK

Pro

I would like thank my opponent for accepting. Good luck!


1. Morality in torture.


I am for torture, because I am against terrorism. This isn't to say that an anti-torture individual is pro terrorism, but I approve of torture, because it can help deter terrorist activity greatly. How, you may ask?

Let's say we capture a known terrorist leader, and we know he has info that is detrimental to Our Homeland Security. We have good reason to believe that a terrorist attack may take place on US soil, and we now have a choice. He certainly isn't going to give the information up easily, the only way to extract this information is through torture. We can do that, or we can allow the strong possibility of the attack to go undressed. Thousands of lives may be harmed because of this irresponsible decision.

I for one would choose torture. Where's the harm? He's a human being, you may argue. He is deserving of human rights, and torture is a violation of his human rights. What about those who would be killed and injured in the terrorist attacks? Aren't their human rights being violated? Of course they are! I am not at all sympathetic to terrorist leaders who kill and injure innocent civilians every day, and who want to cripple this nation for whatever reasons they see fit. If it comes down to either, 1-Torturing a known mass murdering terrorist and saving the lives of even a few people, perhaps even thousands, or 2-Finding "other ways" to stop this terrorist attack from happening and treating this murdering scum with respect, I'd choose the former without hesitation, every time. I don't see how it is immoral to torture a terrorist, and consequently, save lives.

2. Does torture work?

Another argument against terrorism is, does it really work? Is it worth damaging someone's life for a possible solution? Unfortunately, due to the classified information of counter terrorism, it is unsure on how torture was used, and the outcome of such use, but let's look at it this way. So we have no proof that it does or doesn't work. However, again given the hypothetical situation where a known terrorist leader is captured, and intelligence strongly suggests a terrorist attack on US soil will take place, and this terrorist knows the details of said attack, what have we to lose by torturing him? He is a terrorist, who will not be simply released after we're through with him. He will have a court martial, and eventual execution (most likely) so why shouldn't we extract the information from him? It certainly wouldn't hurt, in my opinion. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by torturing him.

Another argument is that, under duress, a suspect will tell you anything you want to hear. Isn't that a good thing? If a bomb is believed to be going off, somewhere in Times Square, NY, wouldn't we want to know where it is? If he's going to tell me what I want to know, I'll take that as a good thing. If you make it known to the terrorist that the torture will not stop until the bomb is found, then logic suggests he will tell you, in order to end the agony. Most terrorists aren't that strong willed, they are human after all.

Again, I see no reason not to use torture in this situation, where thousands of lives are at risk. It sure as hell wouldn't hurt, would it?

Conclusion.

I see no reason why, in the extreme circumstances of possible terrorist attacks, torture shouldn't be condoned. If the suspect being tortured has information regarding a potential attack, or perhaps the locations of weapons or other wanted terrorists, how can torture not be justified? I value the lives of innocent Americans highly above the scum terrorists that walk the earth today, and believe anything and everything should be used to prevent attacks on innocent Americans, even if it mean brutally torturing a terrorist.

Vote Pro!
Contra

Con

Since my opponent has the BoP, I will rebut his arguments.

<<<<<<<<<< Rebuttals >>>>>>>>>>


"Ticking-time bomb scenario!"

My opponent's case is fundamentally unrealistic. Indeed, politicians frequently refuse to deal with this type of experiment because it is very far fetched. If you had the terrorist and knew you had the right person captured, how likely is it that you would have no idea where the bomb was? How would you know if the person in custody had a lot of information about a specific, imminent attack?

Reality is rarely ever so clear-cut. The ONLY ticking time bomb scenario occurs with regularity is when autorities manage to pick up somebody who has abducted a still missing victim or object. [1]


========Arguments========


C1: Bad Intelligence

This is crucial to my opponent's side in this debate. Torture, unlike what my opponent says, is a very poor means of getting information. The 2006 US Army Field Manula on Interrogation states, "use of torture is not only illegal but also a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the HUMINT (Human Intelligence) collector wants to hear." [2]

John McCain displayed this when he was tortured in Vietnam. When McCain was tortured to get information about the names of his flight squad, he instead gave them the lineup of the Green Bay Packers, knowing any information would be enough to make his assailants leave him alone. [1] The use of torture is dangerous to the collectors as well, the infomration gathered from Al-Shaykh Al-Libi made the US believe in a non-existent link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which strongly led to US involvement in the region. [3]

The counter-terrorist experts agree. One American expert agrees that non-torture methods are superior to torture, one detainee went and told the expert "I thought you would torture me; when you didn't I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's what I decided to cooperate." [4]

In 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that torture yielded no better information than gathered through conventional means. [1]


C2: Against Human Rights and Civil Rights

The USA has signed multiple agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, which makes torture illegal. [5]

Furthermore, torture is unconstitutional. The 5th amendment states: "No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and the Eighth Amendment explicitly disallows the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishment." [6]

So, torture violates basic civil rights which are endowed by their creator, and torture is also unconstitutional. To cross the limits of government and checks and balances that we have engraved into our system of government from the very beginning of our history is immoral to the highest degree, and should be considered a travesty if one wished to do so.

Torture also would lead to a slipperly slope for basic disregard of basic rights and human dignity. Considering, just if we got information from torture, why not use it elsewhere? Would it then be immoral to torture someone in police custody who may have information that can save lives? Why not torture women or children if they have information that may be helpful?

In a ticking time bomb scenario, it would be easier to kidnap the terrorist's family and place them in front of him, then proceed to brutally rape, beat, and disfigure the family. If he's still unwilling to talk, the interrogators could execute them one by one. All with huge consequences for both sides, and no good information likely revealed. Slipperly slope from basic torture.

Furthermore, torture puts our American troops at risk. In 2004 al-Qaeda beheaded an American soldier Nick Berg in retaliation of the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib. [7]

C3: Damaging to Foreign Policy Relationships

Torture damages our efforts to win the hearts and minds of citizens of other nations when we fight wars, and without winning the psychological battle, the physical battle becomes much more difficult. Indeed, torture helps empower al-Qaeda's war machine by spurring anti-American feelings with increases the recruitment numbers of the terrorist organization. [4]

Conclusion

Torture is an outdated, barbaric form of human cruelty that leads to abuses and violation of basic human and civil rights. The infomation collected is either useless or not beneficial, torture also stirs up anti American resentment and is counter-intuitive. The scenario I described is rarely ever so clear cut and I already showed all the disadvantages of torture associated of it. Thus, and because torture is unconstitutional and violates our basic Constitutional principles and rights, there is only won case that has been held -- torture should be (and is) illegal.

Sources:




[1] "What You Should Know About Politics... But Don't" By Jessamyn Conrad (2008) p. 188-193

[2] http://www.ritholtz.com...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[4] http://www.lewrockwell.com...

[5] http://www.aclu.org...

[6] AP Government and Politics, 2009. Pearson Education

[7] http://www.nationalreview.com...
Debate Round No. 2
EvanK

Pro

For starters, I offered only one example, when of course there are other situations where torture can and should be used. The reality is, that if a situation occurs, torture needs to be an option.

1. Legality

I'd like to start off by discussing the legality of torture. For starters, we signed the Geneva convention treaties with other countries, as a mutual agreement protecting each others' soldiers. However, we are not at war with anyone. No war was ever declared, and so since the people we are fighting are not fighting for a country, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. If they were uniformed soldiers for a country, different story. But these are non-uniformed combatants, fighting a cause supported by Al Quaeda and the Taliban, not a country, so it doesn't apply to captured terrorists. No war, no treaty applies.

The Geneva convention-[1]"The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions."

Important phrase-"Prisoners of war". We are not fighting a war with anyone, these are not prisoners of war, but terrorist extremist, threatening our country on their own, not representing any country. In other words, third party, non-uniformed combatants to whom the Geneva Convention does not apply.

2. Intel

As far as Intel goes, it is totally debatable. Some say it works. Others it doesn't. Fact is, when push comes to shove, do you really want to risk not being able to get the information needed to protect this Nation and it's citizens from an imminent attack? I should hope not. An example of where torture worked was the finding of Al Quaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

[2] "U.S. officials have acknowledged that two "high-value" Al-Qaeda suspects with close ties to bin Laden -- 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi, who ran the terrorist group's operations after Mohammed's capture -- revealed information about a trusted bin Laden courier. The courier's identity was consider critical to locating bin Laden and the Abbottabad compound.

"Both men were held in so-called "black sites" -- secret prisons run by the CIA that were located outside U.S. territory and where interrogators employed unusually coercive, or "enhanced," techniques that fell outside traditional interrogation guidelines. These techniques included prolonged isolation, shackling prisoners in stressful positions, and the simulated drowning process known as water boarding."

Without the enhanced techniques, we may not have found him. Of course it isn't always successful. However, I'm not implying that it should be used on all terrorists captured, only on those who are believed to have valuable intelligence, such as Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and Abu Farak al-Libi, two notorious terrorist leaders. Fact is, it can work, while isn't successful 100% of the time, it isn't a failure 100% of the time either.

3. Morality

You say it is against the Geneva Convention, however I showed you it is not, if used on terrorist captured during peacetime, which we are in since no war was ever declared. As far as the constitutionality, first, they aren't citizens. Secondly, they wouldn't be doing their job of protecting this country if they didn't do whatever was necessary to protect it. Use of torture should be an option, a last resort option, but still available if we need it.

As far as spread use of it, I do not believe we should torture our citizens. Plain and simple. We can monitor our suspicious citizens and usually capture them before anything bad happens. However, in the case of the terrorists we are fighting, most if not all of the planning takes place over seas, where we cannot monitor as efficiently. Point is, at home, we can capture them before anything bad happens, and we can monitor them a lot easier than over seas, making the use of torture unnecessary. So I do not see a need to allow Police or FBI to torture it's citizens.

I also do not condone using the terrorists family or any other individual other than the terrorist in the act of torture. Perhaps stage something (set up a camera and stage an attack on the terrorists family, but not cause any direct harm whatsoever to them) but most certainly not harming them. Of course there is a ceiling of how far you can go, and harming anyone else is certainly not an option.

4. Harmful to our Troops?

All I can say is, being over there is potentially harmful for our Troops. If we weren't over there, they wouldn't be in danger. To say that our Troops aren't in any danger there already is absurd. You say "torture helps empower al-Qaeda's war machine by spurring anti-American feelings with increases the recruitment numbers of the terrorist organization." Perhaps if we weren't over there for absolutely no reason in the first place, we wouldn't be under attack from a terrorist organization. And if they want to spread anti American feelings because we torture their extremists, then they can stop knocking down our towers and killing our troops.

Point is, if we weren't in the middle east, we wouldn't be under attack from the Taliban or Al Quaeda, and our troops wouldn't be killed. If we really need to take them out, well, that's for another debate, but we can do so without the man power we send over there. There is no reason to worry about them spreading "anti American feelings" when they're the ones killing our citizens and troops.

Conclusion


Bottom line: Torture is legal in the case of terrorists not representing another country in an act of war, and it can be a useful form of interrogation. I see no reason to view it as otherwise. Use of such methods do not harm our troops, being in the Middle East, harms our troops.

Vote Pro!



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1949)

[2] http://www.rferl.org...
Contra

Con

==========Rebuttals==========


R1: Legality

My opponent says that terrorists are not part of a country, we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions. He is basically saying "it is okay" that we torture random citizens who are of a threat to our nation.

And he doesn't refute my unconstitutional argument, so it stands. The Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment and self-incrmination. So, torture perpetrated by the US would be unconstitutional. This stands.

R2: Intelligence

My opponent goes on to say, "do you really want to risk not being able to get the information needed to protect this Nation and it's citizens from an imminent attack?" This has two major implications. First, this is another example of a ticking time bomb scenario, in which I said they are very rare. Second, I already proved in round two that torture is the same or worse at collecting information than other conventional, ethical means.

My opponent goes on to show and example in which torture did work. This fails to refute my stance though. I have shown that frequently torture leads to bad intelligence because they know, "whatever I said would be enough for them to leave me alone." I also showed how mutual respect leads to results - aka conventional and ethical means of info. gathering. As I proved, 1) they are more effective than torture, and 2) are more ethical. I proved that the US army finds torture ineffective and causes US resentment, which is counter intuitive and dangerous. The negative externalities arising from torture vastly outnumber any sort of "intelligence" that may be gathered from the barbaric practices of torture.

My opponent also didn't respond to my argument why don't we line up the terrorist and their families, and torture their families if it would be more effective than torture against the terrorist at gathering information? The slipperly slope of torture would make this desirable - torture the families of terrorists for information. My opponent dropped this argument.

R3: Morality


My opponent attempts to refute my "torture is unconstitutional" argument. However, the text of the 8th amendment states:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." [1]

If the US gov't or military inflicted torture (cruel and unusual punishment) on other people, it would be unconstitutional.

My opponent also goes on and says he opposes torture that is more widespread. However, this misses my point. If it did collect information, which my opponent says it does, and is thus effective as my opponent says it is, why NOT use it against our own citizens if we can gather valuable information from them? So yes, torture does lead to a slipperly slope towards the torture of our own citizens, because IF torture was found to be useful, there would be no reason not to torture our own citizens as well.

Ultimately, if torture is legal it would become ethically necessary to torture our citizens, and this would occur.


R4: Harms the Troops


My opponent attempts to drive away the point and say perhaps if we weren't there in the Middle East there wouldn't be terrorists harming us. This isn't related to the debate or accurate.

Regardless, my opponent left this point alone. I believe we should oppose terrorism and fight it through more multilaterist approaches, and leave military force as an option after negotiations and diplomacy. But, my opponent failed to prove my point wrong.

I PROVED that torture which was inflicted by the US military was used to spur anti American resentment and to recruit higher numbers of militants to al Qaeda's ranks. My opponent failed to refute this. Thus my point stands.

Conclusion

Torture, which is inflicted by the US is unconstitutional. It is against the Geneva codes. Those torture is already illegal.

Torture is no better or worse at collecting information that other ethical, conventional means. My opponent failed to refute this primary fact. Torture increases anti American resentment and increases al Qaeda recruitment, making torture not only ineffective in any way whatsoever, but counter intuitive. Plus, I have said and proved my point that torture leads to a slippery slope in which torture against normal US citizens is okay if it collects valuable information, which my opponent says it does. So, if torture was effective for information, why not torture our citizens? My opponent did not counter my slippery slope argument.

My opponent failed to refute any arguments I have presented and has not met his BoP.



Debate Round No. 3
EvanK

Pro

1.Legality

"My opponent says that terrorists are not part of a country, we should not abide by the Geneva Conventions. He is basically saying "it is okay" that we torture random citizens who are of a threat to our nation."_Contra, Round 3, R1. Legality


No, I stated that because we are not legally at war, these terrorists we capture are not POW's (prisoners of war), are not representing a country in war, the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. This is the truth. Again, the Geneva Convention is [1] "an agreement first drawn up in Geneva in 1864 and later revised concerning the treatment of captured and wounded military personnel and civilians in wartime."

I must have missed your constitutionality argument, otherwise I would have refuted. Seeing as the terrorists captured are foreigners, the constitution does not apply to them. If they were citizens, then it would, but every terrorist captured by our military are foreign, so they do not have any constitutional rights.

2. Intelligence


You state that "ticking time bomb scenarios" are rare, however that doesn't mean it can't happen. In the case of it coming up, do you really and truly want to limit your options of finding a bomb? I don't.

"I already proved in round two that torture is the same or worse at collecting information than other conventional, ethical means."_Contra, Round 3, R2. Intelligence

You claim to have shown that it doesn't work, but I showed you it can, with the torturing of Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and Abu Farak al-Libi leading to the finding of Osama Bin Laden. So yes, it can work. You claim that this example doesn't prove my case, but indeed it does. You say it doesn't work, I showed it can. Again, I don't think every terrorist should be tortured, just the ones who are believed to have information detrimental to our national security. You say that it leads to false information, and again, since most of the documented tortures performed are classified, we really don't have any statistics on the matter. But my example shows that it can work. So why throw out torture entirely? Save it for those that won't cooperate. Bottom line is, it has worked, so it can work. As far as "US resentment", there's already plenty of that going around. Again, if they want to terrorize this country, they can't belly ache when we torture them for information in order to protect our citizens.

"My opponent also didn't respond to my argument why don't we line up the terrorist and their families, and torture their families if it would be more effective than torture against the terrorist at gathering information? The slipperly slope of torture would make this desirable - torture the families of terrorists for information. My opponent dropped this argument."_Contra, Round 3, R2. Intelligence

I did in fact refute those. Go back and read my argument. I said "I also do not condone using the terrorists family or any other individual other than the terrorist in the act of torture. Perhaps stage something (set up a camera and stage an attack on the terrorists family, but not cause any direct harm whatsoever to them) but most certainly not harming them. Of course there is a ceiling of how far you can go, and harming anyone else is certainly not an option."_EvanK, Round 3, Morality

So no, I did not drop the argument.

3. Torture our citizens?


I stated in my previous argument that torturing our citizens is unnecessary because we can monitor them much easier over here, at home. We have the legal system to support a good balance of freedom and security, and so there would be no reason to torture our citizens. And again, it is against the constitution to torture our citizens. There is no reason for us to do so, and it is against the constitution. It is not against the constitution, however, to torture a terrorist, because they are not American citizens. The constitution does not apply to them.

4. Harm to our Troops?

"My opponent attempts to drive away the point and say perhaps if we weren't there in the Middle East there wouldn't be terrorists harming us. This isn't related to the debate or accurate.

"Regardless, my opponent left this point alone. I believe we should oppose terrorism and fight it through more multilaterist approaches, and leave military force as an option after negotiations and diplomacy. But, my opponent failed to prove my point wrong."_Contra, Round 3, R4. Harms the Troops

First off, my point is related to the debate. How would our Troops be harmed by foreign terrorists, if we weren't over there in the first place? They wouldn't be. Furthermore, the leaders of Al Quaeda have said that our presence is one of their motives to attack us [2]. So it certainly doesn't help.

You go on to say that we should fight terrorism, leaving military force as an option. For starters, one of their demands is that we leave the Middle East. Right out of the mouths of Al Quaeda. Furthermore, isn't killing innocent civilians in the Middle East in order to capture or kill the terrorists worse than torturing terrorists? Your argument doesn't seem to make sense. We can't torture terrorists for vital information, but we can kill innocent foreigners? I'm against terrorism, but there are right and wrong ways to avoid it.

I conclude that our presence over there is what harms our Troops the most, not torturing our enemies, and that it also sparks a lot of the terrorist attacks against us.

Conclusion


In conclusion, I have shown that torture can be necessary, that it can work, that it is legal, and that it doesn't harm our troops as some say it does. Bottom line, it needs to be an option as a last resort for gaining vital information.

Vote Pro!

Thanks again to my opponent for a fun debate!



[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Contra

Con

Thanks for the debate.


R1: Legality

Since most terrorists are not part of a country, that Geneva Conventions wouldn't apply to them. However the Constitution's 8th amendment states:

"No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," and the Eighth Amendment explicitly disallows the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishment." [1]


That text says clearly that cruel and unusual punishment inflicted by the US is unconstitutional. It does not make exceptions saying it is okay for the US to inflict torture on non citizens. Thus, torture is not legal.

R2: Bad Intelligence

My opponent goes on to show an example in which torture did work. Fact is however, that torture is an inhumane method that is barbaric in nature and is less effective than other humane conventional methods of collecting information. This is an empirical fact, that my opponent has failed to dispute.

The United States military has found and explicitly says,

"Use of torture is not only illegal but also a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the HUMINT (Human Intelligence) collector wants to hear." [2]

Furthermore, torture of Americans by Vietnamese in the Vietnam War only had a success rate of 5%. [3] Think of all the others that would be harmed through the legality of this barbaric practice.

Many subjects are put in heavy pain necessary to "break" the subject to get information, and the subject frequently becomes so disoriented that they are incapable of rational thought. He becomes unaware of the truth, and this only proves and supports the empirical fact that only 5% of torturing is successful. As I said earlier, most information collected leads to bad evidence, and torture is not effective as conventional, humane means. The Israeli Supreme Court found torture no more effective than humane means of information collection, and the US Army finds torture as counter intuitive. The actions from these prominent institutions, as well as the empirical evidence that supports their decision making, show that torture is ineffective, counterintuitive, and thus shouldn't be legal.

My opponent claims that an Al Qaeda operative was tortured and this lead to good information. The man was tortured 183 times before he released information. And remember the statistic that only 5% of information from torture is actually useful! [4] Wouldn't this be awesome propoganda for the al Qaeda recruitment/ war machine? Seriously?!?

Other methods, such as brain fingerprinting, are vastly more successful than the barbaric inhumane practices known as torture. [5] Brain fingerprinting is a specific example of a conventional method of getting information.

About the slipperly slope, my opponent (fortunately) says that he also opposes families being harmed. This does not really finish this argument contention though, now does it? Fact is, if torture is useful for information (it is not), but if we had it legal, it would be only immoral NOT to torture others for useful information as well! THIS is the point I was making, and was not refuted.

Case in point, the legality of torture would slipperly slope possibly into torturing other citizens for the hope of useful information.

R3: Harms the Troops

There has seemed to be a misunderstanding. We are both clearly on the level belief that currently our adventures in the middle east are causing opposition to grow by groups like al Qaeda and other terrorists. However, my point was connected to this background.

I stated that torture by the US helps al Qaeda. In addition to the US being over in other nations like we are now in the Middle East, torture helps spur further anti-American resentment and increases al Qaeda recruitment numbers. [6] I showed empirical evidence of this being indeed true. In fact, this is one reason the US army opposes the use of torture, it hurts American soldiers indirectly. Furthermore, the terrorists of al Qaeda beheaded US army soldier Nick Berg because of torture that was inflicted by American troops. [7] This is counter intuitive.

Conclusion:

Torture is not as effective as conventional, humane methods of getting information

Torture is counter intuitive, leading to bad intelligence

Torture increases support among our enemies, and making us lose the moral high ground

Torture cannot be inflicted by the US as said in the Constitution, torture is thus unconstitutional

Torture can easily slipperly slope into torture inflicted on average citizens, which if it gained information as my opponent (falsely) asserts, it would thus be immoral to not get information via torture from our citizens

Ticking Time Bomb Scenarios rarely ever occur, and torture would not be the way to solve it. The case my opponent brought up, it took over 180 different occasions of waterboarding torture to get any information.


Considering the evidence, Vote CONTRA.

Sources:

[1]
AP Government and Politics, 2009. Pearson Education

[2] http://www.ritholtz.com...

[3] Stockdale, James Bond. (2001). Courage under fire. In Department of Philosophy and Fine Arts, United States Military Academy (Eds.), Moral dimensions of the military profession (5th edn.) (pp. 321-334). P. 328.

[4] http://thinkprogress.org...

[5] http://www.brainwavescience.com...

[6] http://www.lewrockwell.com...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro, in debate learn to emphasis things. Effectiveness needed more sources and wording. Argue it at the top of the list so you don't shorten it to much. Then legality fit the same reason. You could have won this debate if you really pushed effectiveness then argued the publics interest in safety trumps the constitution or international human rights.
Posted by hendrixas 4 years ago
hendrixas
Torture was touted as a standard military procedure and necessary means to lead to terrorists. After 911 we all agreed with it, but there are a few problems.
Republican congress approved of safe measures not violating the 8th ammendment in an excessive way to ONLY be used in rare situations. Rumsveld added more provisions on such behavior, george bush appointed general miller to guantanamo bay and moved him to iraq and the abuse of detainees changed the US image once the abuse went out of control.

If we believe torture is necessary we must have discression, and it had NO place in Iraq or Afghanistan, as it took us leverage and support of the people down and led to many wanting to remove americans from their country
Posted by EvanK 4 years ago
EvanK
My idea of necessary would be there is reason to believe that the suspect in custody has info that is detrimental to Our homeland security. It could be knowledge of an attack, knowledge of locations of terrorist groups, locations of weapons, etc.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Define necessary.
Posted by EvanK 4 years ago
EvanK
Some people want to get rid of it...I'm arguing it should stay legal...
Posted by Cobo 4 years ago
Cobo
Doesn't the military already torture?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
EvanKContraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
EvanKContraTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Contra was able to efficiently prove that torture was ineffective, and so did not bring enough good to outweigh the bad.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
EvanKContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only attempt to refute Con on his argument that torture is ineffective was to cite a single anecdote. This alone refutes Pro's case, as citing one time a technique does not show it should be a recommended technique, especially in light of evidence that it goes against the technique. Some of Con's arguments fell flat, but Con still wins this debate by far.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
EvanKContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. I do not think Pro fulfilled BOP. Con had more and better resources.