a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info
Debate Rounds (3)
hypothetical. a terrorist has a nuclear bomb in NY city. he says he knows where it is, and that it will explode in a day. all evidence supports that there is a bomb, and that he knows where it is, etc.
when i say "torture" i am assuming we might try a progressive set of tactics, rough talk first, then a little violent, then things like water boarding, then full out torture, if necessary.
most would argue against this as a matter of 'the ends does not justify the means'. even if we assume that that might be usually true (read, 'proportionalism' v. deontology), we cannot assume it all the time. it would be immoral to let millions die because of your mere thoughts of what's "moral".... it would be selfish, and immoral as a lack of action in doing what is necessary to save the city.
i am open to other arguments about why we shouldn't torture them, but i assumed the "ends means" argument would crop its head up, so I got it right at the bat.
1: Pursuit of happiness is protected by the United States Bill of Rights. Our government is going against what America was built upon if we accept this. We cannot allow this to happen. Here is a link about what America is founded upon.
2: Nothing allows us to do this except autonomy. We make the choice to torture people. I just want to point out that torturing people is really low. It is worse than actually killing people. You push them to the brink of death to get something you want. You keep them alive just enough so they feel the pain and will do anything to make it stop. This is horrible folks.
3: This morally wrong. Don't take just my word for it. Read this article!
Conclusion: Torture of any kind is wrong no matter what! Please side with me. The pro is saying torture, which is worse than killing, and save lives. I am saying there is more ways to do this. You don't have to torture someone to find out information. Please see that there is another way to save lives without anyone getting hurt. The aff is being too aggresive. I want to see lives saved, but we need to see that we can't stoop to the terrorist's level!
1. pursuit of happiness also means protecting the milions of lives at risk. utilitarian outlook.... save the most happiness by torturing.
2. we have autonmy of ourselves and that's all we need. if it's the moral thing to do, we could also invoke God.
3. it's the moral thing to do. (which yes means we can invoke God per the last one). why let one person escape torture while letting millions die? let's be proportional about all this.
it's not always possible to get information from other sources. somtimes it's the last resort but a necessary reality.
1. we shall deny no man their rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not talking utilitarianism. i am talking fundamental rights and how torture is against everything the United States stands for.
2. God is a power we do not have. How can we envoke god if people don't believe in a god? Also what gives us the right to enact? What do you mean by all we need is autonomy? If we just use autonomy the world will end in chaos.
3. Torturing is not moral! You could look back at the list of morals we are not upholding. This is not moral and you are being unconstitutional!
The ends do not justify the means in any way. A man threatens bombing. He has info and will not give it. This is violating the 4th amendment. How is this selfish? I am trying to protect other people. This is in no way moral!
conclusion: It is not moral to torture people. If we torture people we will be going against what our nation stands for. Please side with me. Vote neg!
even con's link from the new york times said that torture can sometimes be moral. it advocated it being illegal, but sometimes still moral, and perhaps it's better to force people to break the law to torture as to deter wrongful torture. but we dont have to read it in an article, it's common sense, that sometimes it's more moral to torture than not to, cause you'd be putting an ideology over milliions of lives.
1. fact remains you are breaking a law to do this. It is immoral because it goes against everything I listed in my first statement
1. not answer any of my questions
2. they didn't defend themselves and their side of the debate
voters (why I should win):
1: I have the most amount of sources
2: I have attacked and defended numerous times whereas my opponent just attacked
3: I am defending the great United States and what we stand for.
conclusion: VOTE NEG!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.