The Instigator
kpatel060697
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Steven4Bravo
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Torture

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 3 votes the winner is...
kpatel060697
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 311 times Debate No: 66088
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

kpatel060697

Pro

1. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will.
2. Torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation.
3. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
4. To make torture justifiable, there needs to be a reason like saving lives,there is no other way, and threat to life is imminent.
5. Maximalist torture is morally wrong and should not be used in any circumstances.
6. The bare illegality of their act of torture does not render it morally impermissible given it was otherwise morally permissible.
7. In Conclusion, there are some instances of minimally morally justifiable torture.

In some cases, torture turns out to be the best case scenario in some situation . When you have concrete information that the person knows something , but not the time to interrogate him , that is one of the emergency situation. Here you don't have to take time a slowly interrogate the person. Torture in this case would be the best option and possibly save many lives. This was only one scenario, there are many other where this same concept would apply.
Before applying the use of torture, there needs to be some requirements. As stated in the premises above, there needs to be lives that need to be saved , there are no other ways of getting the information out of them, and the threat to the lives is imminent. If there aren't lives to be saved that there is not other reason for us to torture the other person. Second , torture should only be used as a last resort and never the first no matter the person. If there is a better way of getting the information out of them than that is better. Third , that the risk to lives is unavoidable. This requirement is stating that, we have concrete evidence that the information that the person is withholding is very crucial and it will certainly takes lives of innocent people. The terrorist or anybody else has no reason for taking lives and he is just doing it because he pleases so. One of the example of these requirements are in the torture reading. The one that I am pointing out is the one about the terrorist . In this example, the police knows that the terrorist that they have captured has planted the bomb and the police has the sufficient information from the email and messages that they intercepted from the terrorist's conversation. They also know that they don't have time and the bomb will kill thousands and the cites will be inhabitable. This is a scenario , where the last resort is torture . These are some examples that make torture minimally morally justifiable.
There is a huge difference between maximalist torture and minimalist torture. Minimalist torture does the torture the humane way and not take it too far and on the other hand maximalist does the exact opposite. After a minimalist torture is performed on you, you survive the trauma and you can move on with you lives. Maximalist torture does takes it too far and even if you survive the torture physically, your mental state is broken. Maximalist torture make the victim of torture unable to continue with their lives. This type of torture is taking it too far. After a torture , a new identity should be given to the torture victim, so that the people who he betrayed cannot kill him or capture him. Minimalist morally justifiable torture is the only right type of torture.
One argument that is used against the pro side is that it is illegal. The bare illegality of their act of torture does not render it morally impermissible given it was otherwise morally permissible. Otherwise, just because it is illegal to torture somebody, it doesn't make it morally impermissible. As I said earlier, there are some situation where torture is the last resort and it could save thousands of lives. You could either choose to torture a person who is about to kill thousands or watch as many people die. So the point is that, there are some instances of minimally morally justifiable torture.
Steven4Bravo

Con

1.Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will.
2. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
3.Torture and interrogation coercion are never morally permissible.
4.The comparison of defense and interrogation is superficial.
5.Questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense.
6.The difference between our duties to perform certain acts of causation and our duties not to perform certain different acts of causation on the other had.
7.The bare illegality of their act of torture does not render it morally impermissible given it was otherwise morally permissible is irrelevant.
8.The premise that says torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation needs more specification because your conclusion only says some instances.
9.In Conclusion, there are not any instances of minimally morally justifiable torture..
The premises that are not controversial are torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will, and Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, the comparison of defense and interrogation is superficial.
Premises that are controversial are torture and interrogation coercion is never morally permissible; questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense; the difference between our duties to perform certain acts of causation and our duties not to perform certain different acts of causation on the other had.
The premise torture and interrogation coercion is never morally permissible I believe is not controversial because if you torture them to the point of death you can never be sure if the information they are giving are true. You can also never be sure if the person has information or not.
The premise questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense I believe is not controversial because questioning can be a case of aggression but not always is defense a case of aggression because it could be a natural reaction in some cases can be but not all the time.
If torture seems to be the best case scenario and you don"t have the time to interrogate someone you have much less time to torture him not knowing whether he will comply to give information or just take the torture until he dies. Therefore if it is the best case scenario that could also mean that murder will also be minimally morally justifiable.
If by your premise that there should be requirements before resorting to torture. Your other premise when it is the best case scenario but you do not have time to interrogate them contradicts each other. Yes if lives of many are at stake that should be the only requirement to use torture because no one should die because of something you didn't do. If you are stating that it should be a last resort what if you have no time then torture still shouldn't be the first resort. What if the information that he has is crucial for that one day because the thing that is going to happen is going to is going to happen the very next day. How are ways we know that the safety of those lives are unable to be avoidable we don"t know if the operation with the information is going to be able to succeed or fail.
If minimalist torture and minimalist torture are different and minimalist never take it too far. What exactly is not too far? If there is no specification on what is too far how do we know if we are about to kill them.
The argument that you say is used against the pro side that is torture is illegal is irrelevant and doesn't support the argument because your conclusion does not state anything about the legality of torture it is saying that some are minimally morally justifiable. There are no instances of torture that are minimally, morally justifiable.
Debate Round No. 1
kpatel060697

Pro

The premise that are not controversial are the definition of torture , definition of morality. In the con argument , the minimalist and the maximalist ideas are brought up. As I said in my first round argument, after a minimalist torture is performed, the tortured comes out mentally and physically unscathed, and can continue his life normally. He should also be provided with a new identity and not be sent back to those he betrayed. A maximalist takes it far by either death or when he is rendered useless to function like a normal human being like before. After that kind of a torture, continuing their lives should be nearly impossible.
The con side is saying the following "If by your premise that there should be requirements before resorting to torture. Your other premise when it is the best case scenario but you do not have time to interrogate them contradicts each other." Emergency situation are totally different. Example, a terrorist has planted a bomb that is threatening thousands of lives and you don't have time. In this emergency situation, you have concrete information that the terrorist knows something, and lives are at risk. You can use a minimalist way of torture on the terrorist to get the information out of him. In this emergency situation, there are no other ways to get the information out of a person . So this cases fill the requirements. Everything depends on the kind of information you have. If you have Concrete information, than you can use Minimalist torture but also keeping the requirement in mind. With out concrete information, you do not have the evidence to prove anything and using torture would not be minimally morally justifiable.
In your number eight premises, you have stated that me including emergency situation does not match with my conclusion that is stating some instances. Actually , emergency situation are included in this some instances. There is nothing in my conclusion that is stating that emergency situation are jot part of the some instances. There is more explanation needed by what your premises number eight is stating. Same thing, with your premises number 5, there is no explanation by what you mean by that.
Steven4Bravo

Con

For my premise number 5 states the following; questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense. What I am trying to express through this claim is that when you are questioning someone it is not when aggression occurs but when you defend yourself it is because there is a feeling of aggression weather it is your own feeling or the other persons feeling towards you for example in a case of revenge. The premise number 8 is stating; the premise that says torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation needs more specification because your conclusion only says some instances. This is saying that is emergency situations do that go along with the some instances and what would be an example of an emergency situation. When you say that a maximalist takes it too far by where the victim dies what is another system of torture that a maximalist may use before the victim of dying. I agree that their lives cannot go on as normal that we would need to give them a new identity and not send them back to the people that they have betrayed. My premise that says there should be requirements before resorting to torture and before resorting to torture. When it is the best case scenario but you do not have time to interrogate them does not contradict each other because I am saying if there is a possibility that there could be time then you should make sure that requirements should be met. Then if you are completely sure that there is no time to interrogate them then it"s okay to resort to torture even if it doesn't meet all of the requirements. You are contradicting yourself from your conclusion that torture is minimally morally justifiable when you say you can use minimalist torture but also keeping the requirement in mind. Therefore your premise helps my argument. This makes my conclusion that no torture is minimally morally justifiable true.
Debate Round No. 2
kpatel060697

Pro

To summarize what you said in the beginning of your round two is that revenge is the only reason why someone would want to torture someone. Not every torture that is performed is based on the idea of revenge. There are other problems when the information is needed. Revenge might not be the only thing that you are talking about but not every torture has to have feeling involved in it. In most cases the torturer and the tortured do not even know each other so there would be no reason for one to use feeling in this matter.
I don't understand when you stated that the minimalist argument is contradicting my conclusion. My conclusion states that some cases of torture is minimally morally justifiable. What I am trying to say is that when all the requirements are met than you should use minimalist method of torture not the maximalist ways of torture. You also said that "Then if you are completely sure that there is no time to interrogate them then it"s okay to resort to torture even if it doesn"t meet all of the requirements." is helping my case because you are stating that there are some instances where torture Is minimally morally justifiable.
Another consequence that might happen are a maximalist tortures somebody is that when a torturer is done and plans no letting the tortured go, the tortured should be able to move after a little while, has a mental state of mind and can go with their life. An example of the emergency situation would be the terrorist example that I used in my last round . If a terrorist planted a bomb , thousands of lives are in danger and there is no time than using torture would minimally morally justifiable. Also in my conclusion when I state that some instances of torture are minimally morally justifiable , the some instances include emergency situations. For situations to be called emergency , those situations are very serious , the situation is threatening many lives and there is no way of saving people using methods beside torture .
Steven4Bravo

Con

I agree that not all torture is based off the idea of revenge but when you say that the one being tortured and the torturer do not know each other is true but based off of anticipated revenge. Therefore that argument is invalid. I was saying when you said you can use minimalist torture but also keeping the requirement in mind is that I was asking you if minimalist torture is one of the instances you are referring to. If you had answered yes to the question above then answer what are other examples of these instances and what makes them morally justifiable? Along with using the terrorist example you keep on using if the terrorist planted a bomb and a bunch of lives are at stake what is the possibility you can have a chance to save them and if you are unable to save them then torture could possibly still be used but then it would not be an act of anticipated revenge it would be an act of revenge. There some part of your argument I can agree with you but it doesn't mean I support your conclusion anything I say is supporting my conclusion continuously supporting my conclusion that no type of torture is minimally morally justifiable. Also you need to explain how you would figure out that the terrorist or whoever has information or not and how you are to figure it out if it is true. I also agree that a maximalist consequence could be that they would not let the person being tortured also referred to as the tortured go. Then but if you let them go what makes you sure that they won"t go back to the terrorist and help them plan another attack you can never be sure if what you are doing is the right decision. If you think you can be sure explain how. Explain how each of your instances is minimally morally justifiable. Specify at least three types of torture that are from a minimalist and three from a maximalist. There is a lot more specification needed in many of your arguments. You have only given one example of an emergency situation but what is another one.
Debate Round No. 3
kpatel060697

Pro

1. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will.
2. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
3. Maximalist torture is morally wrong and should not be used in any circumstances.
4. To make torture justifiable, there needs to be a reason like saving lives,there is no other way, and threat to life is imminent.
5. In Conclusion, there are some instances of minimally morally justifiable torture.

The definition of torture and morality are matters that are not controversial since we both agree on it. Maximalist torture is also another subject that requires not controversy and so is the the requirements for one to torture. In the subject of maximalist torture, you agreed with me that a maximalist takes it too far, when using his methods. There has been no controversy over the matter of requirements, so I am going to assume that you agree with me.
Things that you pointed out in the last argument is that if the police were unable to save the people and than the police would use it as revenge on the person. But that would be after the incident. That is totally a different secanrio and it would be wrong to torture somebody using a reason like revenge. That would not be part of the some instances that my conclusion is stating. There is no actual reason and the requirement are not fulfilled with just that reason. One of the argument that you used is about the source of the information. The information may come from anywhere but it needs to be concrete like, it could be intercepted from call between a terrorists or other sources.
About the maximalist torture, you said that what makes me sure that the person wouldn't go back to the people and try to do the same thing. For one instance, we could keep a watch on them and make sure that they wouldn't go back. But on the other hand , there is a very low chance that they would go back after they just betrayed them. In the end , I stay with my conclusion that some instances of torture is minimally morally justifiable.
Steven4Bravo

Con

1.Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will.
2. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
3.Torture and interrogation coercion are never morally permissible.
4.The comparison of defense and interrogation is superficial.
5.Questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense.
6.The difference between our duties to perform certain acts of causation and our duties not to perform certain different acts of causation on the other had.
7.The bare illegality of their act of torture does not render it morally impermissible given it was otherwise morally permissible is irrelevant.
8.The premise that says torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation needs more specification because your conclusion only says some instances.
9.In Conclusion, there are not any instances of minimally morally justifiable torture.
Yes we both agree on the definition of torture and morality. Yes we agree on what is maximalist torture and requirements for one to justify torture. Yes in the last argument it would be after the incident. There is not a low chance because how would the people on the other side planning the attack know that we got information out of the person we have captured. Also your conclusion states that some instances of torture are minimally morally justifiable and you can stand by that but it doesn't mean it is completely ethical. In my view torture is wrong in all ways weather a maximalist uses it or a minimalist uses it either way it is wrong and not minimally morally justifiable. My premises are now proving how my conclusion is correct and what was wrong with your premises. I believe that torture cannot be the only possible way to get information there has to be a more ethical way to get what you need. I stand by my conclusion torture is wrong no matter which technique you chose to do.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
kpatel060697Steven4BravoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really rebut Pro's arguments, he just rebutted some, and then stated new arguments.
Vote Placed by wolf24 2 years ago
wolf24
kpatel060697Steven4BravoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more convincing arguments, spelling and grammar, and better conduct. Pro obviously crushed Con.
Vote Placed by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
kpatel060697Steven4BravoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con repeated same point on how minimalistic torture is never ethical or justifiable but never adequately proves this is the case. I would have really enjoyed more philosophy rather than just speculation and claims without warrants. Ultimately though, pros argument stating more lives are saved practically went untouched during the debate.