The Instigator
Banksi
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
blueivycarter
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Torture

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 66817
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Banksi

Pro

Torture is to inflict server pain on, either mentally or physically for the purpose of breaking their will.
Psychological forms of torture and ill-treatment, which very often have the most long-lasting consequences for victims, commonly include: isolation, threats, humiliation, mock executions, and witnessing the torture of others.
Some cases of torture are due to extreme emergencies.
Torture can be considered an effective form of punishment in some instances.
Killing can be considered and effective form of punishment in some instances.
Morality is the distinction between what"s permissible and impermissible in respect to harm.
People consider some killing moral but contrary to killing, torture can sometimes be brief and one being tortured can live their life after, where as a person killed cannot.
There are acts of extreme emergencies where it is acceptable to torture someone because the well being of another individual or society is at stake.
The level of morality of torture depends on what"s at stake.
Torture that is minimally, morally accepted comes down to who"s well being will be more greatly affected, the society as a whole, or the individual being tortured.
Around 911, Many individuals thought to be in terrorist groups were tortured in hope to get information that could possibly lead to us knowing more information about the terrorist group Al Qaida, which would lead to provide justice for America.
. What"s acceptable is what is tolerated and approved by majority.

Therefore, there are some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
blueivycarter

Con

1.Torture is to inflict severe pain on some non-consenting defenseless, but the purpose does not need to be, breaking their will, and the torture does not necessarily have to be mental or physical.
2.Psychological forms of torture and ill-treatment have long-lasting effects, which very often have the most long-lasting consequences for victims, commonly include: isolation, threats, humiliation, mock executions and witnessing the torture of others. The consequences listed are not examples of minimalist torture.
3.There are no acceptable cases of torture due to extreme emergencies because they are not minimally, morally acceptable.
4.Just as torture can be considered an effective form of punishment in some instances, it can also be considered ineffective.
5.Killing is not an effective form of punishment because ultimately the non-consenting defenseless is killed and the now purpose of the torture is null and void.
6.Morality is the distinction between what"s permissible and impermissible in respect to harm.
7.Killing ends someone"s life, while torture can just put a person"s life at stake, but killing and torture cannot be considered moral because torture ethically wrong, and what is ethical is moral.
8.There are no extreme emergencies where it is ever acceptable to torture someone. Even during an extreme emergency there are moral ways to go about saving an individual or a society at stake.
9.The level of morality is not dependent on what is at stake. The two are irrelevant from one another. If torture is being committed regardless of what is at stake, the morality level is negligent at that point.
10.Torture that is minimally, morally accepted does not come down to who is being more affected. By definition, minimalistic torture is dependent on the victim"s will being broken temporarily.
11.Yes, many individuals believed that torturing terrorist groups would lead to information about Al Qaida, but that does not mean the torture is minimally, morally acceptable.
12.The word acceptable, by definition is able to be agreed on; suitable. The term acceptable has nothing to do with tolerance or being approved by majority.
13.Whether torture is minimalist or maximalist, temporary or long-term, no form of torture is morally acceptable.
14.Therefore, there are no cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
Debate Round No. 1
Banksi

Pro

Torture being moral depends on the reasoning for the act. If killing is at some times moral then torture can be to, because unlike killing, you get to live your life afterwards. Law enforcement uses their gun all the time, so why is torture such worst? If you have to torture someone for information and the circumstances are understandable, then it should be okay. In some states death row is legal, although the two are incomparable, why would one be legal and the other be considered totally unmoral? Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
blueivycarter

Con

Yes, I suppose torture being moral depends on the reasoning for the act. But, is killing ever moral? Maybe in some particular cases in the law it is justifiable, but that doesn"t mean it is moral. With torture you may live afterwards, but you can suffer from the horrible affects of torture later in your life; Such as damaged self-identity and a person"s autonomy. Torturing someone is never understandable because it is never moral. Arguing the topic of death row is irrelevant and incomparable to torture, so why bring it up in the first place? A law can be legal, but still be morally unacceptable. Therefore, there are no cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
Debate Round No. 2
Banksi

Pro

A law is something that everyone abides by, there for it is accepted. What makes it morally accepted or not depends on whether the outcome of the act serves for a greater good. Torture can be compare to the topic of death row because in torture the torturer has physical control over the victim"s body, e.g. the victim being strapped to a chair, and then the victim is then terrorized by means of the controlled use of physical suffering. Criminals on death row, legal in some states, are put in an electrical chair and then electrocuted. This sounds a lot like the means of torture. If a criminal can be put on death row then a criminal should not think they have the right to not be tortured. This is one example of how there are some cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
blueivycarter

Con

Not everyone abides by the law, and not all laws are accepted or to be more specific, morally accepted. People protest laws every single day; Laws are changed, passed, and altered all of the time. What act may serve for the greater good does not make killing or torturing someone morally acceptable. However, killing and torturing someone can be justified. I still do not understand why you would compare death row and torture because they both entirely different things. With death row you are not breaking someone"s will; you are simply ending their life as a punishment for a crime that they committed. On the other hand, torture has a purpose in which you physically inflict pain in order to break a person"s will. Electrocuting someone in a chair to end their life is incomparable to torture; they are entirely difference. As stated of above, the two things have no correlation with one another. Just because it legal in some states for someone to be put on death row does not mean it is morally acceptable. Moreover, torture is not morally acceptable either. Comparing death row to torture is an invalid argument. Therefore, there are no cases of torture that are morally, minimally acceptable.
Debate Round No. 3
Banksi

Pro

1.Torture is to inflict server pain on, either mentally or physically for the purpose of breaking their will.

2.The level of morality of torture depends on what"s at stake.

3.Torture is usually and mostly needed in emergency cases when it"s needed.

4.Most emergency cases that call for torture are for the better of a greater good.

Therefore, there are some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
blueivycarter

Con

1.Torture is to inflict severe pain on some non-consenting defenseless, but the purpose does not need to be, breaking their will, and the torture does not necessarily have to be mental or physical.
2.The level of morality within the torture is irrelevant because torture is not moral to begin with.
3.Torture cannot be justified as minimally, morally acceptable by saying it is "needed".

4.Yes, emergency cases that "call" for torture are for the better of the greater good, but once again that does not justify torture being minimally, or morally acceptable.
Non-controversial: Premise 3 and 4 are not controversial because there is no way prove that some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

Controversial: Premise 1 and 2 are controversial because what defines torture can be argued; there are various definitions.
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 FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
BanksiblueivycarterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I cannot give any decent award... don't feel as though either side brought enough to the table, or took away from the opponent so as to render a reasonable vote.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
BanksiblueivycarterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't find Pro's argument that what is morally acceptable is what is tolerated and approved by majority very convincing. I found that Con was able to give good rebuttals to this argument in addition to there central argument. Giving Con conduct points because I found that in round 4 Pro ignored everything Con said in round 3 and it comes off rude. Due to Cons incorrect spacing between numbered points and the start of sentences Pro ends up with less grammar mistakes.
Vote Placed by kai11 2 years ago
kai11
BanksiblueivycarterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: i feel that con had the better etiquette but pro persuaded me that torture has good purposes