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:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.