The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

is torture minimally morally justifiable?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 65185
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




1.Torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain
2.What is ethical is moral.
3.Morality is conduct guided by impartial reason.
4.Torture proper targets autonomy itself, and seeks to overwhelm the capacity of the victim to exercise rational control over their decisions"at least in relation to certain matters for a limited period of time"by literally terrorizing them victim into submission.
5.The purpose of this process of terrorizing the victim is to cause the victim to cease to act in accordance with his or her own will and act in accordance with the will or the torturer, even if only temporary.
6.Minimalist torturer is that in former case the victim"s will is broken only temporarily and in contained manner, and their consequent humiliation is limited i.e., they survive the trauma and are able to get on with their lives.
7.There are different kinds of torture.
8.Not all forms of torture are physical.
9.Information is sometimes more valuable than morals, so that justifies some tortures.
10.We should not look at the justifiably of torture based on our emotions but rather on the "net benefits" gained from torture.
11.Torture is way more effective that other interrogation techniques with the exception of use of leverages.
12.The observer would understand the consequences of disobedience and the sufferer would understand the extent of which the power of the state has over him/her.
13.Therefore, torture is minimally morally justifiable.


1.In response to premise four, if the victim is no longer in a state of control over their own decisions, or thoughts, then the received information might be planted by the torturer and repeated by the victim, or somehow tainted and thus no longer viable.
2.In response to premise five, the purpose of such a process is not to break the will of the "victim" but to extract information, without mutilating or killing.
3.In response to premise six, torture is not in any way something that victims can move on easily from, they develop severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and torture can have long-lasting psychological effects on both the torturer and the victim.
4.Premise eight is irrelevant when following premise seven.
5.In response to premise nine, this statement is contradictory to the conclusion the premises are supposed to help prove.
6.In response to premise ten, this statement is irrelevant and contradictory to premise three, ethics and morality is objective.
7.In response to premise eleven, although the argument of the acceptability of torture should be objective, the focus should not be on the benefits but the morality of torture.
8.In response to premise twelve, torture has been proven virtually ineffective because they revealed falsified or incomplete information.
9.In response to premise thirteen, this statement is irrelevant in that there is no obvious connection tying to or proving the conclusion.
10.In response to premise fourteen, the only one to learn from torture would be the torturer, most torture is secretive, and torture is also against the law, which does not make society a better place
11.Morality can be defined as being concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
12.Inflicting pain on another person would, in most places, be considered morally wrong, and even against the law; assault, battery, abuse, etc.
13.Assault is against the law because it is morally abhorred and seen as unscrupulous act. One might ask why torture, a more extreme exercise of assault, would be considered morally acceptable.
14.Passed in 1791 was the eighth amendment of the constitution, prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, including torture.
15.Torture can be defined as; the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.
16.The definition of torture shows that such acts are usually used as a form of interrogation or a way to gather information.
17.Not only does the government clearly not abide by its own rules, it also forces interrogation techniques, based on suspicion of terroristic activity.
18.While such techniques are sometimes profitable, gaining "information", the people who extract the information clearly overlook the self-preservation of the detainees. Their response to being brought to the brink of death over information, would be to come clean, or fabricate lies that would save their life.
19.If torture would only be deemed acceptable because of the extraction of information, then the information gotten would be in question. And if the information is not completely worthwhile, then there is the possibility that an innocent would be being abused and mutilated for no purpose.
20.Torture, used during the extraction of information, could be considered morally wrong because it is just to use said person as a means only. That torture is okay to use on that person because of what they know, not the fact that they can suffer the pain just as must as any other person.
21.Torture should not be seen as morally justifiable, simply because of what the consequence might become.
22.This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person"s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil.
23.Any argument that justifies the use of torture as morally acceptable, begs the question as to how far that can go; is murder morally acceptable in some cases?
24.Therefore, no torture is minimally, morally acceptable.

Non-controversial- premises 2, 3, 7, 8
Controversial- 1(true) if a more specific definition, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Questions; different kinds of torture? Different forms of torture? What are other interrogation techniques besides torture?
Debate Round No. 1


Dazjonae Hines

In response to your premise 1, how exactly can the information be planted by torturer if they"re the ones trying to get the info? I need you to clarify or use examples. And information cant necesarrily be "tainted" with unless it written evidence. Nine times out of ten the torturing process is video recorded at all times. So this premise is controversial. If you haven"t really witness or give an example of a time when torture information was "tainted" with then you shouldn"t really make that claim.

Breaking the will can be extracting information without mutilating or killing. Do you actually know what "breaking the will means"? Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed. Actions made according to a person's will are called "willing" or "voluntary" and sometimes pejoratively "willful" or "at will". In general, "will" does not refer to one particular or most preferred desire but rather to the general capacity to have such desires and act decisively based on them, according to whatever criteria the willing agent applies.
So I can simply break someone"s will by killing their self-pride or sanity VERBALLY" for example, a torturer can simply manipulate one into giving information by doing reverse psychology, lying to them to make them think critically about the mistake they"re making, causing them to go into an over-whelming panic. A shattered person who can be repaired. That is one way of, breaking ones will. And btw torture is never meant to kill.

I said minimalist torture, what you seem to get around/describe is maximalist torture. Minimalist sense is the least form of torture, it"s not as nearly as crucial as maximalist torture, it"s just like one starting the torturing process and one gives in very quickly.
If torture has been proven ineffective because they falsified or incomplete information can I please have an example of a case? Are you trying to tell me the all torture cases have been proven virtually ineffective? Here"s one example where torture has been proven effective with complete information:
Back in 2002, G"fgen kidnapped an 11-year-old boy, Jakob von Metzler, whom he then murdered. Without disclosing that Jakob was dead, G"fgen demanded a ransom of "1 million from the child"s wealthy parents. He collected the ransom, and was arrested soon after. The police, who thought Jakob was still alive, demanded to know where he was hidden. G"fgen refused to say. According to G"fgen"s lawsuit, they beat him, then told him a torture specialist was being flown in, a man whose training would enable him to "inflict more pain on me than I had ever experienced." At that point he confessed, telling the police that the boy was dead and where his body could be found.

In response to your premise 12, we have seen that torture involves the infliction of pain but that not all infliction of pain counts as torture. There can be legitimate reasons for inflicting even extreme pain (as in the case of an emergency operation when anesthetic is not available) and there can be legitimate reasons to inflict pain in order to achieve legitimate behavioral goals (like getting people to obey the law).Or just simply a mental thing, torture isn"t always physical.

Response to premise 13, we are not talking about assault, we"re talking about torture.

In response to premise 14, although that was passed in 1971, we are now living in the 21st century so that can be merely irrelevant today.

Response to premise 15, you didn"t add that it can also be and or a mental thing, it isn"t always inflicting physical severe pain on the victim.

I"m not sure what you mean in premise 20, please clarify.

Response to premise 21: Some torture should be seen as morally justifiable because the consequences that sometimes come out of these cases, saves lives of innocent people. For example, a bomb threat that"s going to kill millions of innocent people" wouldn"t you want to torture one to stop it?

Response to premise 23, you keep trying to link torture and murder, torture isn"t intentionally murder. When you see the definition of torture does it have murder in it? There"s a difference between torture and murder.

This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: would torture be deemed morally justifiable if it was then a personal matter to you? Is it morally right to let a potential terrorist go just so they can cause more evil? Or torture them for the greater good? Is torture still the extreme evil if it kills less and saves many?


Clarification on premise one; Torturers do not ask the question "what do you know", and leave room for interpretation for the victim. The torturer would ask specific questions such as "what is your involvement in the attack on "" After multiple days of being tortured with minimal food/sleep, where the torturer is trying to "break their will" the victim would say anything to end the torture.
I suppose the point of my premise two was not obvious enough, so I"ll reiterate. "In response to premise five, the purpose of such a process is not to break the will of the "victim" but to extract information, without mutilating or killing." First of all, mutilation can be defined as causing serious damage to a person, which includes someone"s mind. Second of all this premise is saying that the act of torture is not to break ones will, as you state in your premise five, but to extract information.
A more specific example;
A switch from more physical methods of torture to the psychological approaches emerged in the following decades in places such as Vietnam, Central America and Iran, McCoy said, without any definitive proof of their effectiveness. When the "War on Terror" was initiated after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the CIA had another training ground for this kind of interrogation at its Guantanamo Bay detention center. Guantanamo Bay turned into a de-facto behavioral science laboratory, where sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain"allowing a detainee who had stood for hours to sit if he would only "cooperate""regularly took place. Though captives are less resentful when tortured psychologically, it doesn't make their statements any more trustworthy, Rejali said. "Torture during interrogations rarely yields better information than traditional human intelligence, partly because no one has figured out a precise, reliable way to break human beings or any adequate method to evaluate whether what prisoners say when they do talk is true," Rejali wrote in a 2004 article
In response to your example though, that is not actually effective in parallel regards to the torture. He was being tortured so the boy would be safely returned to his parents as per terms of the ransom, not to find out that the boy was dead. It is not morally correct to inflict "more pain on me than I had ever experienced," for any reason, even if what that person did was morally wrong.
Clarification on my premise twelve; what meant was to inflict unnecessary and unconsented pain, as shown in my examples. And if there is a legitimate reason, such as medical necessities, then it wouldn"t be considered torture because there is most likely someone"s consent, if not from the person, then from their next of kin.
It was passed in 1791, and if the constitution were irrelevant today, we would not base our modern laws on it and still hold it in such high regard. There would be no supreme court(as the supreme court judges whether or not something is constitutional or not), therefore there would be no change in laws.
Clarification on premise 15, my definition of torture says nothing of physicality, therefore it can be either in the physical or mental state.
Clarification on premise 20, it is not morally acceptable to torture someone just because there is suspicion that that person knows something. Nor is it morally acceptable to torture someone because it would be considered the lesser evil. They can feel pain, just like any other person, so hurting them as a means to justify the torturers self. The torturer would then be causing more physical/mental harm to someone that the victim themselves even theoretically caused.
No torture should be seen as morally justifiable, because no one actually knows the future so "saving lives of innocent people" is only a guess as to what would happen. First of all, how do you know that the people who were threatened were even innocent? Second of all, if there is a bomb threat, until it is proven, or blown up, it is just that, a threat. Thirdly, more often than not, it is not one person responsible for things like terroristic activity, so if one person was to blow something up then captured before getting the chance, the others that they were working with would carry out the plan anyway. So there would be no point to torturing them to stop a bombing. And in response to your question, what I would want has nothing to do with the morality of it.
Clearly I have not said anywhere in my argument that torture and murder is the same thing. It is called an analogy. And there is a link between murder and torture, most cases lead to or started because of murder. Why would the detainee be somewhere like Guantanamo Bay if not because of killing "innocent people". The analogy links the two to show how preposterous it is to argue that some cases of torture are morally acceptable, which you don"t seem to understand. You are trying to argue that the welfare of some people are more important than others. Which is a completely different argument, and has nothing to do with the morality of torture.
This side of the argument is objective, and the outcome of the question would remain the same even if it had certain ties to myself. A "potential terrorist" is relative because terrorism is defined as; the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims, so to someone in a different country, the Americans would be considered terrorists, and going along with your argument, they should capture people on vacation because they are American and a "potential terrorist." In an argument of morality there is no "greater good", it is only, "is this good or not". Torture is independent from its consequences when viewed in regards to morality. It is still and act that is not morally acceptable.
Debate Round No. 2


That"s nice and all but there has been many cases when 9 times of out 10 torture has helped save one or many, Imagine this scenario: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs, or some other method of torture, will get you the information to save a million people, are you justified in doing so? Not only is it permissible; it is a moral duty.
However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which torture would be required to acquire life-saving information. And once you've established the principle, the argument is not whether torture is ever permissible, but when"in other words, how big, how imminent, how preventable does the threat have to be to justify it?
In 1994, 19-year-old Israeli Corporal Nahshon Waxman was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis captured the driver of the car used in the kidnapping and tortured him in order to find where Waxman was being held.
Faced with a similar choice, an American President would have a similar obligation. To do otherwise"to give up the chance to find your soldier lest you sully yourself by authorizing torture of the person who possesses potentially lifesaving information"is a deeply immoral betrayal of a soldier.
There is much to admire in those who refuse on principle ever to take up arms (or, in this case, torture) under any conditions. One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend.
As a society we would accept that one person, and or his crew, being killed to save thousands is legitimate.
Of course, it is far more hateful to inflict harm on an innocent person than a wrongdoer, but in some extreme cases, where it is almost certain someone has information that could prevent many lives being lost and there is no other way to obtain that information, the mere fact that they're not directly involved in creating that threat doesn't mean they can wash their hands of responsibility.
No one is saying that ALL torturing practices are morally justifiable, just some.
Imagine if we could've stopped 9/11? How many thousands could've been saved if we had caught and tortured a senior operative and found out the plot? It's an internal question, are you willing to make a hard choice to help the greater good?
Rhetorical, I don"t actually care about your opinion.

To say that torture is "never" justifiable is being overly moral and less intellectual about the situation.

Obviously, torture would want to be avoided, at all costs - but what if the subject in question knows the location of another known torturer/murderer who plans to kill 20 orphans?
The only time it is acceptable in my opinion is when we are doing it to save innocent lives... So why give the inhuman murderer mercy and not to go to any means possible to save innocent people, or children? You my friend, are a very cruel person.
And to answer your question, "First of all, how do you know that the people who were threatened were even innocent?" You don"t know that the person is even innocent, but, if you have suspicions and they link themselves close to the crime, even if they"re are an accessory to it" chances are they know SOMETHING to help you get one step closer.
In response to your "second of all", why would you wait until the bomb has actually blown up? That"s the point of torturing, to prevent things like that from happening.
Under torture, a knowledgeable suspect may not tell the truth and an innocent suspect cannot; there can be no method of distinguishing between the two. Arar, a victim of the US"s "extraordinary rendition" program, claimed that, under torture, he eventually confessed to whatever was demanded, "You just give up. You become like an animal." (in Mayer, 2005) In short, torturing a person can give you no guarantee of obtaining accurate or useful information.


I don"t really know where you keep getting this 9 out of 10 but perhaps you should leave out the statistics when there is no such proof regarding this in your argument. The argument you present asks to justify acts that are not morally acceptable. To argue that torture is morally justified because of the instances you give, is merely subjective, whereas true moral justification is objective. There is no moral duty other than to follow what is right and wrong, not what you believe right and wrong to be.
Also in other words, what society at one time believes to be true or moral does not always make it so. For example; slavery. Most cosmopolitan societies in the world believed that it was moral to have slaves. The believed there was nothing wrong with selling and buying people as though they were commodities. Today, most of those societies have laws which abolished such practices.
Torturing someone because they had an involvement in September 11th, I would assume from your argument, would have a justification in torture because there is a possibility that there are other "innocents" that might suffer from the hands of those people. But torturing them would not bring back people from the dead nor would it help the lives of the families hurt by their wrongdoing. But you cannot hold a person responsible for a crime that they did not commit.
And as I already pointed out, there is no "greater good" in moral objectivity. Such a notion would only be subjective. As it turns out, there are no time machines, but I can tell you one thing, if a person knew of 9/11 and stopped it before it happened by killing or torturing the people involved, no matter their intentions, they"ve just committed murder, or other various crimes. The people they"ve stopped would get no prison time unless they were proven to be linked to the possibility of an attack, which by the time that would take place, would probably already be back in their country that would not extradite them to adhere to our laws. The only person whose life would be harmed would be the person who tried to help "the greater good".
If your question was rhetorical, then it was irrelevant, and shouldn"t have been stated in the first place.
To say that torture is morally acceptable is acting subjective and close-minded.
All of these scenarios and what-if situations are being brought up from nowhere, because the beginning premises you"ve stated have fallen apart. Grasping at straws to save an argument that you try to make sound as good vs. evil as possible. The argument is not whether or not someone might justify THEMSELVES or their country by using torture, but whether that act of torture is morally acceptable.
What is cruel is thinking that physically or mentally damaging a person is ever morally justified because the outcome might be a bit too hard to handle.
Many people can fabricate connections between crimes and other people, but that does not mean they exist. To torture someone based on a suspicion would be akin to torturing a random person that you see on the street, "because chances are that they know something to get you closer."
You are arguing that people should be tortured based on what ifs, suspicions, and guesses. But we happen to live in a society that believes you are innocent until proven guilty, and someone cannot be proven guilty of something like blowing up a building and killing dozens of orphans, without that actually happening. If it doesn"t happen, then it"s called conspiracy to commit a crime, which would be straying from the main point and topic of how torture is not morally justified.
As for the last paragraph, that is contradictory to your argument and favorable to my own.
Debate Round No. 3


Cool. I actually did give you a real life scenario when torture has helped save one or many:
In 1994, 19-year-old Israeli Corporal Nahshon Waxman was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis captured the driver of the car used in the kidnapping and tortured him in order to find where Waxman was being held.
But here"s more:
Allen West. Allen West was the Army lieutenant colonel who fired his pistol next to the head of a captive Iraqi policeman to get him to reveal a plot, and thereby stopped attacks against his men. West reported himself, and was disciplined, an outcome that excited enormous outrage within the blogosphere.
Murad. One of the best-known cases (repeatedly cited by Alan Dershowitz) is that of Abdel Hakim Murad. Murad was an Al Qaeda bombmaker in the Philippines. In 1995, he accidentally blew up his kitchen, then was captured when he returned to retrieve his laptop. The Philippine authorities tortured him with great brutality for 67 days (hitting him with chairs, grinding out cigarettes in his genitals, pumping him full of water), and he eventually confessed a plot to blow up eleven U.S. airliners and assassinate the Pope.
Abu Zubaydah and KSM. When President Bush revealed in September 2006 that high value detainees had been kept in secret CIA prisons and interrogated with EIT, he asserted that the interrogations had produced life-saving information. His example was the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking Al Qaeda official. This interrogation (the president said) produced a treasure trove of useful information. The President says, "Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information." This is a reference to Padilla, whose identity Zubaydah disclosed. In addition, the President states that Zubaydah "identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh." This in turn led to the capture of KSM, who revealed a great deal of useful information.
And I"m pretty sure I can find more 9 times out of 10 cases.
Also, could you please explain what specific argument is subjective and what"s subjective about it? Thank you.
In response to, "Torturing someone because they had an involvement in September 11th, I would assume from your argument, would have a justification in torture because there is a possibility that there are other "innocents" that might suffer from the hands of those people. But torturing them would not bring back people from the dead nor would it help the lives of the families hurt by their wrongdoing."
I never said torturing the terrorists from 911 would bring back the dead, I said, imagine if we could've stopped 9/11? That means, before it even happened. How many thousands could've been saved if we had caught and tortured a senior operative and found out the plot?"
""you cannot hold a person responsible for a crime that they did not commit." I specifically said if they were an accessory to the crime, if they are an accessory to the crime then they"re just as responsible as the actual hands who did.
Response to, "To say that torture is morally acceptable is acting subjective and close-minded." How is that subjective and close-mined? Once again I"ve stated that SOME cases of torture are morally acceptable/justifiable" I understand how some pleasurable torture cases are crucial and cruel, that"s why the key word here is SOME.
There actually is "greater good" in moral objectivity, it is called consequentialism.

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, "the ends justify the means",[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.[2]
Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also distinguished from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision.

If I have trailed off please, do so, tell me where" I have simply gave you critical thinking scenarios, real life scenarios, what ifs etc. to get you to get what I"m saying. These are given/stated to SUPPORT why I"m saying that SOME cases of torture are morally justifiable. But then again, I might be "close-minded".

But this is therefore, why some torture is minimally morally justifiable.


As I have not asked for any of these examples because they are irrelevant, you are just summing up instances of torture and not actually stating how they are moral, I shall respond nonetheless.
1st example is one person against another. How is one person"s welfare or life more important than another? And to say that one is innocent and the other isn"t, you would have to completely disregard the man"s past, for him to be seen as an innocent. And if you ignore one"s past actions, then you must ignore the other ones as well, which they would both then be innocents. And thus an innocent man would be being tortured.
In the third instance, there is a reference to a laptop, what is not referenced is if it was used to gather intelligence by the same people torturing a man. It would seem obvious to first look into the option of the laptop to try to avoid torture altogether. (And Alan Dershowitz is a person who morally opposes torture)
The 4th example seems quite controversial. Unbeknownst to the average American, there are many jobs of the president and assuring public safety is one of them. For example, JFK, with the advice from his political advisors, lied to the American public that there were nuclear warheads directed at America from Cuba by the Soviet Union. He lied and told them they were all safe, while there was a very real possibility of war. President Bush also shows an example of lying to the public. He told people that the reason we were going to war in the Middle East was because "top researchers" believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. After a decade, none were ever found. This example could also be a lie, because he wants the public to feel safe again after such a violating tragedy. There is a very slim chance that the CIA had no previous information on terroristic plots.
Most of your argument is subjective, this excludes the examples used. It is subjective because you are arguing that the outcome of whether it is right or wrong depends on the situation and if you feel that person or people are more innocent and their lives/welfare are more important.
And people who are accessories to crimes would not get as severe a sentence as the person who actually committed the crime. This is not elementary school bullying rules where the bystander is just as much at fault as the bully.
In response to your consequentialism addition, this is a view, not a fact, and not recognized by all philosophers. And the consequence would truly have to be to the utmost severity to actually be considered in this form of thinking, although it might be economically beneficial or intellectually beneficial, it still does not make torture morally right.

Alex Knapp, a staff writer at Forbes, wrote the following in 2009, "Time and time again, people with actual experience with interrogating terror suspects and actual experience and knowledge about the effectiveness of torture techniques have come out to explain that they are ineffective and that their use threatens national security more than it helps."
FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, the United States Army field manual, explains that torture "is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear" Not only is torture ineffective at gathering reliable information, but it also increases the difficulty of gathering information from a source in the future.

That is why torture is not, in any circumstance, minimally, morally, justifiable.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
anything is
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by sjrrj 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Torture is inexcusable. End of story.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 would win the "moral" part, but what really got the justifiable part was pro's potential of saving millions of lives by torturing a terrorist. Good job, pro. To con, I agree that this topic was really biased to pro's position, especially the toughness to NOT be able to justify torture in ticking time-bomb situations. Nevertheless, good job to both of you.