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.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
No information
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.
I found neither to have a strong case, but with the BoP resting on pro, the key focus on innocents was not enough (as much as I admit it was an effective emotional appeal to be built upon). And I was left wholly agreeing with pro's implied argument that it should not ever be justified. And definitely people not being terrorists would be far superior...
Con's made a simple case that it would be worth it should a terrorist have information to save a great many lives (specifically, 1 terrorist in pain against weighed against 3000 innocents who will outright die if the trolly doesn't change tracks). He heightened this with a review on the lack of physical harm from waterboarding as a method to make the torture less gruesome.
---Advice---
Pro:
No one (save for communists) will argue in favor of random innocent people being tortured by the government for no reason. Showing why even someone we hate should not be tortured, is where you needed to prove the never piece to your BoP. Also as another voter has pointed out, there were good weaknesses in con's sources you should have exploited.
Con:
Hate to say longer, but another angle of attack could have really sealed this. Reminding us the definition of justified also would have been very effective (justified doesn't prove something is best, just that there was good reason). And if ever doing this topic again, a good source you may want to look at: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/23_1/05_TXT.htm
Pro made a simple argument that throughout their ordeal convicted criminals need not be tortured. This is true, and Con MUST justify "torture"
Torture: "According to Cambridge Dictionary torture means to cause great physical or mental pain to someone"
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.
Further suggestions: "Effectiveness" is not a justification. "The good outweighs the bad" is not a conscionable reason to hurt someone.
*******************************************************************
>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.