The Instigator
giantsbane
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LucasClarvoe
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

should torture be used against terrorists

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 101500
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

giantsbane

Pro

Many people disagree about whether torture should be used on known terrorists. I believe that torture should be used for various reasons. One reason is torture could prevent lots of "collateral damage", by torturing a terrorist we could find a bomb that would have killed many people if we had not found it. " if we are willing to act in a way that guarantees the misery and death of some considerable number of innocent children, why spare the rod with known terrorists? This shows how if we torture known terrorists we can take the noncombatant death toll down considerably. Another argument for torture is that in extreme circumstances torture can be completely justified, "Torturing the terrorist is unethical and can't be justified, but it can be understood, and it can be forgiven." this shows how in extreme circumstances, like a bomb in highly populated lace like times square, torture would be totally justified. As you can see from the evidence the government should use torture against known terrorists.
LucasClarvoe

Con

In regards to the topic of whether or not torture should be used on terrorists, many believe that torture should not be used on terrorists. I believe that terrorists should not be tortured. This claim is justified by the fact that despite what they have done terrorists are still people, and torture is in violation of the 8th amendment. This supports my position because torture is unconstitutional thus meaning that it is a bad thing to do something. Inevitably we must agree that torture no matter who it is used on is an evil and unconstitutional punishment.
Debate Round No. 1
giantsbane

Pro

While my opponent makes very strong points, although in the past the U.S. has violated the Geneva convention with the case of Hamdi V. Rumsfield, where the U.S. held captive a citizen with suspected ties to Taliban so If absolutely necessary the government will not mind ignoring the convention(which in real life I find slightly scary).
LucasClarvoe

Con

Many people disagree over the topic of use of torture on terrorists as it is a controversial issue. There is little doubt that torture is wrong and should not be used on a living thing regardless of what it has done. My opponent says that the government is willing to violate the Geneva Conventions in extreme situations, does that mean that we too have to alright with violating a treaty that is meant to preserve and protect human rights?
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 9 months ago
ILikePie5
Excon: If that was the case, then we'd have the obligation to help everyone suffering in the world right now. Even if the 5th Amendment did apply, how does that have anything to do with torture? The government would just have to prove that they are terrorists. But remember, there are "enemy combatants." These people have no rights as far as I know, and the terrorists at GITMO are enemy combatants. Extreme torture isn't used because of the Geneva Convention.
Posted by GoOrDin 9 months ago
GoOrDin
no. that's just sickly inhumain. once they are captured, they are no longer a threat. unless you are planning on releasing them after you torture the terrorist,

then it is inhumain to torture them.

what, are you insane? psychotic?

also, maiming people isn't really the torture you're making reference to is it?
because that deserves it's own name.
nerve damage is maiming. you've got to be clinically insane to be okay with maiming people.
Posted by excon 9 months ago
excon
Hello Pie:

Nahhh... The Constitution is clear.. Here's the 5th Amendment: "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The founders COULD have said "citizen" instead of person, but they didn't.. I don't think that was a mistake.

excon
Posted by AutisticSeagull 9 months ago
AutisticSeagull
The ticking time bomb situations is a non-Sanskrit anecdote because life isn't a Hollywood movie. It never happens. Furthermore research has shown that people that are tortured don't give out the write information they just say thing to make you stop. And to Top it off, are you willing to take on the burden of having tortured innocent civilians as a nation?
Posted by ILikePie5 9 months ago
ILikePie5
It's not unconstitutional if it isn't done on U.S. Soil. The Constitution only applies if you are a U.S. Citizen/Legal Resident or on American soil.
No votes have been placed for this debate.