Instigator / Pro
11
1469
rating
7
debates
28.57%
won
Topic

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

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
3
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
11
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
--> @Conway

*******************************************************************
>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

************************************************************************

Added:
Instigator

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.

Added:
--> @seldiora

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.

Added:
Contender
--> @Conway

thanks for the vote, but please refrain from speaking out against the source when the opponent has not stated anything about it.