Instigator / Pro
11
1469
rating
7
debates
28.57%
won
Topic
#2655
Torture is never justified, no matter what the situation is.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
11
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
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.
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
Greetings.
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.
Thanks
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.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Conway] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision:
Pro made a simple argument that throughout their ordeal convicted criminals need not be tortured.
The CIA operative Con cites could not justify torture.
- "One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."
- Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.
- "Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."
Relevant words you will not find in the CNN article: Guilty, Convicted
All I know is that the informant was scheduled to be tortured because of their association and presumed intelligence.
_________
Pro opened up by framing an image of supervillains torturing innocent people for their gain. Please do not waste time of the person you are debating with.
Pro did not take time to proofread their argument in round 2.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award spelling and grammar points, the Voting Policy explicitly mentions that the voter must provide clear evidence that the spelling mistakes were excessive, they must provide examples of the mistakes, and they must compare both participants' grammar. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. As for argument point allocation, the voter must weigh both debaters' arguments and counterarguments. Only one source was mentioned in the RFD and none of the arguments are weighed. I apologize for the late removal, but this vote does not meet the minimum guidelines outlined in the Voting Policy which I will link here:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************
Actually this question is quite difficult to find source for me. As what I could do is let the question to be ethical issue but not practical.
I consider the source to be credible. What exactly are you saying?
In my case, it was not necessary that the flaw be highlighted. It is now common knowledge, but the next person might gloss over it.
thanks for the vote, but please refrain from speaking out against the source when the opponent has not stated anything about it.