The Instigator
AREKKUSU
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Torture towards criminals

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...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 27089
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

AREKKUSU

Con

First round is introductory.
I'm taking the position Con, for I don't think of torture to be 'just'. I ask that will Pro be someone that is for the idea of torture to be a good punishment for criminals(or some criminals).
I'm sure you'd know this already but no spammers, swearers, or in general, anyone that would be bothersome to deal with. So just make it somewhat formal...
I wish Pro good luck and let begin!
RationalMadman

Pro

As hypocritical as this sounds, I am pro torture of criminals because I am con torture.

Torture is often mindless giving of the most severe pain to people for the fun of terrorists and criminally insane people to enjoy. It is thes epeopel who mus tbe tortured, or their minions, to get at the main leader and hence tear down the terrorist and criminal organisations that run horrific 'concentration camp' styled communities.

I shall now highlight my contentions.

Firstly, while some argue that torture violates the dignity of man, it is necessary to view torture in the proper context of defending the life and dignity of the innocent lives that the man who is being tortured threatens. It would never be questioned morally if a man pulled out a gun to shoot innocent civilians and a policeman then shot him down. There would be no argument about the assailants dignity because the assailant was threatening the dignity, life, and rights of other human beings. As such, the assailant sacrifices many of their rights, including the right to be treated with dignity and to continue living (if the man threatens others). There is little difference between a man on the verge of shooting innocent civilians and a man that retains and withholds vital information that could help save the lives of innocent civilians (possibly millions). Both are poised to kill innocent civilians, and both have foregone their right to dignified treatment and life itself. The state has the obligation to protect the rights of the innocent over the assailant in both moments.

Second of all, There is substantial support to the notion that, from the decision-makers perspective, torture would be acceptable in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario as a means to save thousands if not millions of lives. (See the film Unthinkable to see that people actually died because they did not torture him hard enough).

Thirdly, there is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' 'rights.' The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.

On another note, any proper application of torture would only be toward the extraction of information that could help save lives. It is a defensive action, not a retributive action.

In summary, torture, in the "ticking time bomb" scenario, can be effectively utilized to save millions of lives. If those that are engaged in the process of developing torture tactics have this valid and profound national security benefit in mind and at heart, they should have no problem with its morality.
Debate Round No. 1
AREKKUSU

Con

I think that torture in general should never be used. If a man killed someone and his punishment was to be tortured in some way, that would make you no better then him.

"There is little difference between a man on the verge of shooting innocent civilians and a man that retains and withholds vital information that could help save the lives of innocent civilians (possibly millions)."
I disagree with this. Withholding information is not a crime and we shouldn't treat it as one.

"Both are poised to kill innocent civilians, and both have foregone their right to dignified treatment and life itself. The state has the obligation to protect the rights of the innocent over the assailant in both moments."
Also untrue. Just withholding information doesn't kill anyone. The information could result in saving someone, but it doesn't literally kill anyone.

"Second of all, There is substantial support to the notion that, from the decision-makers perspective, torture would be acceptable in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario as a means to save thousands if not millions of lives."
I disagree. Lets think about it mathematically for a second. A persons life doesn't hold a value. They'd just be a variable. So say we have X, the person that withholds information, and Y, the victims. Even if we had 1,000,000Y we can't say it's greater then X since neither have a specific value. You could argue that we just 'know' that 1,000,000Y>X but mathematically speaking, that would be false.

"Thirdly, there is an important difference between terrorists and their victims that should mute talk of the terrorists' 'rights.' The terrorist's victims are at risk unintentionally, not having asked to be endangered. But the terrorist knowingly initiated his actions. Unlike his victims, he volunteered for the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary." It's true in a way. Any criminal in the act of harming another being shouldn't complain if he gets killed. BUT if he were to be stopped in the process, or even captured after the process, torture or even the death penalty would not be right. There are many alternatives that don't bring us down to his level of insanity.

"On another note, any proper application of torture would only be toward the extraction of information that could help save lives. It is a defensive action, not a retributive action."
I still find it to be wrong. You see interrogation all the time when it comes to government cases. Many of these times the person could save a life if he just spoke up. They never cause any type of harm to this person anyway. Why might that be? The answer should be quite obvious. It's wrong.

Sorry to say that I can't put up very many of my arguments up. I need to go to sleep because I'm spending the day tomorrow with my girlfriend. With that said I won't be able to reply to the next round until about 5 or 6Pm central time.
Thank you very much for your patience and I wish you luck for the rest of the debate.
RationalMadman

Pro

You set the time constraint to 24 hours, you are at fault if you fail to meet it. Especially if it's merely going out with a girlfriend for the day. I hope you manage to get back in time to reply.

First of all, the notion that withholding information that could save lives is not a crime and therefore is not sufficient reason to force it out of someone displays a complete lack of understanding of the justice system altogether. Information is like an antidote to a pandemic. Imagine if swine flu was like a mass terrorist attack about to happen. It would kill people faster than the swine flu and faster than it. With an antidote to swine flu, microbiologists and other research scientists collaborate, being given full access to any lab rats they need, any resources they need. They will trample on other research projects and force others to give up their resources for that research as well as funding because let's face it saving millions of lives is of the utmost importance the moment we realise we can do it. The terrorist in question has information of an attack that could be happening in one second, one minute, one hour and if it's even as close as 20 minutes the CIA in Middle East could be immediately contacted to assassinate a certain individual and prevent the whole thing happen (for example if that individual is the person responsible for saying 3, 2, 1, attack). Now, a terrorist is not just an average human being who we should care about. They are a person with knowledge of an attack, or maybe simply an organisation, which is potentially going to destroy the world, if not a huge portion of the human population in the world. They probably rape, torture, steal and kill for their own amusement, so torturing the terrorist is relatively not actually that immoral at all. They are a human weapon loaded with what could save million of lives or help destroy it. They are like a safe with the antidote to swine flu in it, that you desperately need to save yourself, your daughter or whoever it is you need it for. The only way to get information out of a brainwashed individual who would lay down their life for an organisation is to make him (or her) feel such unimaginable pain and torment that they reach a stage where they cannot perceive the possibility of not giving all the information they know. Torture is the only way to make someone who sees withholding information as a good idea suddenly see it as the worst possible idea perceivable, thus forcing them to opt for not withholding it. This is essential to be done in a very short and rapid time because for all Mr. Head of CIA knows, that bomb is set to go off in three seconds (and they'd best hope not!).

Secondly, you think one person is worth the same as one million people to society and the world? You clearly are delusional, and this is such an obvious fact that the only way to explain and justify it is to actually kill a million people, let you watch the devastation caused, the families torn apart, the economies destroyed and the entire globalised exportation and importation of the regions affected, as well as all the one's involved with them having to reform into a fragment of the brilliance that it was before, Then rewind the tape and then torture one person to save the million and perhaps after I did that for you to see, might gain some perspective.

I have countered both your rebuttals and look forward to an exciting round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
AREKKUSU

Con

AREKKUSU forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Pro

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
AREKKUSU

Con

AREKKUSU forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Pro

Forfeited by pro.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Swap 'con' and 'pro' in last round please, I made a mistake lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
AREKKUSURationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF