Instigator / Pro

Torture is never justified, no matter what the situation is.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
Greeting , Thanks seldiora accepted the challenge.

Before mentioning any points of view , let us define what’s torture mean. According to Cambridge Dictionary torture means to cause great physical or mental pain to someone intentionally. It is clear that torture is never justified , no matter what the situation is. So the question could be rewritten as “Is torture others causing more harm than good?”We support this question and here’s why. 

First , torture never solve any problem but would worsen the case only.Torturing others is equivalent to blame someone who caused the trouble. Trouble-makers are annoying ? Yes , undoubtedly they are. Would that be a reason for us to justified torture ? No definitely not. When you are caused trouble by them , shouting at those who may help you in the foreseeable future couldn’t help you to solve any kind of problem but instead those trouble-makers are prohibited to help you.Not only slow down the progress of your original plan but it is not moral to torture others.Since the originally plan from their button heart is help you but not destroy your plan , torturing someone who is innocent is what those villain in Marvel story did. Therefore torture is never justified , no matter what the situation is.

Second , torture would demolish other’s well-being. Generally speaking torture other’s as if knocking other’s heart. What’s different is physical and metal punch. After torturing others you get emotional satisfaction by hurting others. Of course you feel much better , but others feel heartbroken. According to deontology hurting someone who is innocent to increase your happiness is unethical. Not only other’s lose the mood for contenting your happiness but in fact they are innocent. 

The aforementioned reasons are why we think torture others causing more harm than good.I would like to ask my honorable opponent two questions. First why torturing someone who is innocent is moral while they already accept the legal judgement. Second do you agree torture could not be solution in some cases. 

Here Pro speaks from an emotional perspective where innocents being tortured is bad and that you will not encourage the criminal to help you, therefore torture is never justified. I will admit that you should never torture an innocent. But the crux of the debate lies in, can it ever be justified to torture an evil-doer for the greater good? 

There is evidence to the contrary. Waterboarding was extremely effective from a CNN news source-- " he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions... after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.
The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks". Now, the terrorist was not even physically hurt, only mentally, through this waterboarding technique. It's well known that almost 3,000 people died in the September 11 attack. If we were in some ticking time bomb situation where it was crucial to break through and gain information, I'd say it's worth it to give some emotional hurt to save thousands of people. The terrorist accepted the possibility and risk of getting caught and wished to harm innocents in order to tell a message and influence the government. It's precisely because we don't want the innocent to suffer that I advocate for torture under extreme circumstances.

Now back to pro.
Round 2

Both of us acknowledge torturing innocents would never be justified. However , my opponent still haven’t concur torture villains should not be justified. The crux of this issue should be educating offenders is more effectual than torture criminal. Here’s why.

Educating villains as if treating the problems rather than symptoms.Insufficient education is the root of the problem. Their mindsets are full of vengeance , violence and hatred. Indeed , saving 3000 people's lives is vital. However ,avoid the terrorist murder 10000 people would be a more urgent problem. Turning a blind eyes to this definitely is not the solution , but , instead of educating them my opponent choose torture the villains.There will be no difference between villains and torturers if we do so. The situation would be similar to a murder murder someone and his son murder the murder again. It would become an endless loop only. In another way , education could stop revenge . Sending these people to jail would be a better solution actually. The story would become his son getting compensation and forgiving the man.

After proofing educating offenders is more effective than torture criminal , my opponent and I both should agree torture in any cases never shall be justified since always a better option exist. 


Pro has not provided any sources that educating the offender will be any more effective than torture. With the quick result instantly gained through saving lives, it's clear that the torture is justified under the ticking time bomb scenario. Jailing them will not gain us any information quickly enough to save the people targeted by potential terrorists.