CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yeah sure work the fucker over till he breaks , if he doesn’t break you would have lost your daughter either way.
Maybe you could do the PC thing and try and see it from the criminals point of view ? After all he could be the product of a broken home or one of the other go to reasons for the bleeding heart brigade
If the means justifies the end then the answer is a resounding YES.
If, by using unorthodox interrogation techniques one life is temporarily screwed up so many others can be saved then there cannot be any rational argument against the use of any form of irregular interviewing procedures.
How the feigned emotional outbursts of the sanctimonious phonies is no more than the pretentious showboating by the bleeding heart brigade trying to occupy the moral high ground.
In the dirty war against terrorism and ruthless organised crime gangs there has to be those real people of substance who are prepared to dedicate their lives to do what has to be done so the hand wringing do-gooders can get a free ride.
So to feel virtuous, you'd not torture the kidnapper while the other kidnapper raped your daughter on a live feed on facebook. Jolly good. Always glad to meet a good Samaritan who's willing to give up their child for the cause.
You're an idiot. An accused is innocent until proven guilty. The most central tenet of law in the developed world. Administering torture upon an ACCUSED is a violation of the presumption of innocence, and it's also a violation of myriad international human rights laws.
What you're essentially saying is that we should allow police to torture innocent people in order to obtain confessions. It's fucking moronic to the highest degree. Extensive research shows that torture is not effective in ascertaining facts. In fact, the more you torture a person, the more likely they are to falsely confess in order to stop the torture.
Giving police that power, is literally the signing away of your freedom and human rights. And all this coming from a fucking idiot who thinks America is the freest country on the planet. And you're willing to give it away.
I repeat: You are a fucking moron. And you need to jump off a cliff.
The idiots in the Bush administration thought, like you, that the Constitution wouldn’t apply if they only tortured people offshore. Of course they were wrong.
You are citing the UN Declaration of Human Rights. You mught also want to look at the UN Geneva Conventions, particularly the sections concerning the rules of war and definition of international aggression.
The United Nations did NOT permit America to instigate the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, owing to the stipulations of the Geneva Conventions. These wars were thus internationally illegal.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights also prohibits torture under any circumstances. Thus, by invading sovereign nations and torturing foreign citizens on their own soil, America is in breach of both these treaties.
I sure as hell do. When I was a young man, I was sent to Iraq because Iraq invaded another country. According to Sadaam Hussein, he was creating and had nukes, so whether he had them or not, he said he did, and was later taken at his word.
As for the UN having any say concerning what America does? I have one single sign language for those Communist bastards. We'll call it "twins I win".
You tried to cite a UN source to back yourself up in a previous argument lol and now they're "commie bastards"? Which is it?
Look, America willingly signed the UN treaties. Doing so, mandates for them an international, self-accepted duty to recognise and abide by those treaties.
Now, you seem to deify militarism and live by adherence to discipline -- commendable if done with some self-examination and moderation -- but yours is at worse willingly blind, at best unintentionally short sighted. You're only willing to extend your reverence for law and order to the extent that America can never be wrong on the world stage, in your eyes. But these treaties were set up for bigger things than BrontoRaptor or America. They were set up so that never again would the world be subject to acts of international aggression by powerful states who are party to the agreements. They were instigated by Churchill, backed heavily by the Americans, and lauded by the rest of the world, and yet, ironically, the only states party to the agreements to have ever provenly violated these agreements are the Americans and the British.
Fascism and aggression are what they once both stood against. Now America -- a country that used to stand up for what was morally correct -- supports the very things it once stood against.
It wasn't power or wealth that made America great, it was an aspiration to intelligence and a reverence for morality, forward thinking and true freedom that made it great.
Modern America is an embarrassment to that. The premise of this debate alone just proves it. "If torture works, should we let the cops do it?"
That sounds like something a Nazi politician, an SS commander, a Stasi station chief or a Cheka interrogator might propose. Not "leader of the free world".
The whole point of the UN Conventions in Geneva was to found international laws to prevent the fracturing of nations into groups of nationalistic, imperialist fucktards a la Hitler and the Nazis.
You LIKE fractured tribalism, because it fits into your spasticated mindset of righteous war against brown people.
The whole point of the UN Conventions in Geneva was to found international laws to prevent the fracturing of nations into groups of nationalistic, imperialist fucktards a la Hitler and the Nazis.
Actually it was to control the world under a different mask.
You LIKE fractured tribalism, because it fits into your spasticated mindset of righteous war against brown people.
Fascism and aggression are what they once both stood against. Now America -- a country that used to stand up for what was morally correct -- supports the very things it once stood agains
1)America" is a broad, meaningless term. 350 million Americans don't "stand for" one ideological mindset. There is no "American values". America has hundreds of sets of values that they never agree on.
2)As for fascism, nope, many of us stand for standing against Islamofascism, and protecting gays and women from said Islamofascism. We're called Conservatives.
That's what we think of Europe while it parades around in pink underwear and is overtaken by anti Western foreigners.
The premise of this debate alone just proves it. "If torture works, should we let the cops do it?"
I never mentioned cops, American citizens, or the like. I mentioned non-American terrorists who are provably a part of terrorist groups. They don't want waterboarded? Easy. Don't join a terrorist group.
That's what we think of Europe while it parades around in pink underwear and is overtaken by anti Western foreigners
Europe's doing fine. You, however, live in the worst of echo-chambers. Your bubble is filled with noxious gas and you can't see what the rest of the world does.
I mentioned non-American terrorists who are provably a part of terrorist groups.
Hello bront:
Which comes first? The TORTURE or the PROOF??
And, if you need proof BEFORE you torture, isn't that what we GET in court?? OR did you torture him to GET the proof?? And, IF you did, you KNOW you can't CONVICT him in court, don't you???
No, you don't.. But, that IS, of course, WHY the US Government CAN'T convict the terrorists in GITMO of ANTHING.. You know, that pesky Constitution..
1)If waterboarding is torture, I've been tortured. Probably because I've been through actual torture, waterboarding doesn't hit my torture radar. If U.S. military personel can handle it, so can the Taliban.
2)With Trump, we investigate the person rather than a crime. What happened to "Russian collusion".... Are you interested in Kathy Griffin with Trump's decapitated head? Yeah, me neither.
3)When military personel capture a terrorist, they know he isn't an innocent farmer.
Nahh... Waterboarding HURTS like hell.. Just tip your head back when you're in the shower and let the water fill your nose.. You KNOW it, I know it, and everybody knows it, that filling your NOSE with water really, really HURTS.
Sure it does, but that's the point isn't it Con? No one gives up intel because it feels nice. We essentially use the tamest method that is still effective in getting information, which is actually a double portion of morality. We will go to extremes to defend our loved ones, while still not chopping off body parts, burning people, starving people, etc.
It's rare torture does anything that can't be done in other ways. In fact, a suspect under torture is likely to admit to a crime just for the torture to stop. It's the same reason children of extreme child abuse seem convinced they are bad. It's also why it's possible to mentally break someone, via torture, into believing things about themselves and others that aren't true. The phenomena have been studied extensively in neurology, neuroscience and psychology. CIA operatives, and the Senate Committee that wrote the study on CIA detention, nearly unanimously agree that torture is not an effective information gathering tool.
And, if you need proof BEFORE you torture, isn't that what we GET in court?? OR did you torture him to GET the proof?? And, IF you did, you KNOW you can't CONVICT him in court, don't you??
1)You don't use waterboarding to prove the waterboardee committed a crime. You use it to get intel that leads to Ben Laden's location. The waterboardee typically has committed fouls so agregious, that it's beyond the pale. Much of the time, they've already been tried, but refuse to talk, and the waterboarding is used to save lives that are worth saving. Every person waterboarded during the Iraq War was already labeled as an "Enemy Combatant" prior to the execution of waterboarding.
2)Our enemies cut off fingers, hands, penises, feet, starvation, whatever, to get what they want.
So, you want the US to live DOWN to the level of our enemy's
1)We have no enemies according to the left. There are no human animals. We haven't lived down to our "enemies" by using methods that are 1% as extreme as their methods.
2)Waterboarding isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
3)Without waterboarding, Ben Laden would still be alive. Ya know, the guy who bragged about and orchestrated 9/11?
4)Your proposition is like refusing to hit or tackle someone in football to be a "nice guy". But in reality, your opponent hits you, wins the game, then sees you as the fool.
5)Tell us Con. Was the use of the Atomic bomb on Japan right or wrong? Why or why not?
You might. Your tribe thinks Conservatives are the enemy rather than MS-13 or Hamas. They've recently defended both.
2) Neither is pedophilia
Pedophilia has nothing to do with the Constitution, nor does waterboarding. We have laws because the Constitution doesn't cover every aspect of everything. It would be 5 million pages long.
3) BS
Khalid Sheikh Muhammed gave up intel on Ben Laden's locations during waterboarding.
4) MY proposition?? Nahh, it's the Constitutional proposition
So show me waterboarding in the Constitution.
5) In hindsight, it was.. You DO know what HINDSIGHT is, don't you?
This is the moral issue that you can't get past, Bronto: killing civilians is wrong regardless of their skin colour, nationality, or supposed religious beliefs. If Bin Laden is a terrorist for ordering the killing of 3,000 American civilians, then Bush is a bigger one for ordering the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
What makes it right when YOU do it, but wrong when THEY do it??
That's why I take the morally consistent view: it's fucking WRONG when ANYBODY does it.
Because the U.S. has rules of engagement and is an organized military going after other organized military units. Ben Laden does not and did not. He did a surprise attack on a civilian building by taking over civilian planes, and America isn't his only target, so he can't claim his targeting is based on America or the West. He's happily killed random civilian Muslims intentionally.
Because the U.S. has rules of engagement and is an organized military going after other organized military units. Ben Laden does not and did not.
Bin Laden was a civilian wanted by the American FBI for crimes committed against the United States, you nonsensical, stupid fucking hypocrite.
He did a surprise attack on a civilian building by taking over civilian planes
Liar. Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 and that can be proven easily by your complete lack of evidence he was involved. As per usual you are only here to promote the lies and myths of Israel.
Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He focusses on CIA support to the narcotics trade.
He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of the September 11 attacks.
This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.
It has been kept away from western attention because the west is full of evil little bastards like bronto who lie, deceive and murder their own just so they have a good excuse to start a war.
I don't love things that are supposedly in the Constitution but aren't really in the Constitution.
Hello again, bront:
Like I said, pedophilia ISN'T in the Constitution.. You LOVE that??? DUDE!!!
Look.. You're SMARTER than to think a particular word NEEDS to be IN the Constitution BEFORE it's law.. That's poochy boy stupidity.. Tell me, Constitutional dude, where is ARSON, STEALING, CHEATING, KILLING, and more, MENTIONED in the Constitution??
It doesn't matter what else is or isn't in there. When one uses the word "Constitutional", they are inferring that the term is in the Constitution. If I say "Constitutional", the term is actually...in the Constitution.
The list of things you provided are in the law. Waterboarding goes in and out of the law. It's been legally used and not been used.
Tell us Con. Is it moral to not use waterboarding if the intel needed would save thousands or millions of lives?
Part of the constitution gives highest legal authority to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1890's that torture was illegal.
The constitution also states that America is to abide by the treaties it has signed with other nations. One such treaty is the Convention on Human Rights.
By extension, it is therefore unconstitutional in several ways, to let the cops torture people (which is the premise of the debate).
It wasn't power or wealth that made America great, it was an aspiration to intelligence and a reverence for morality, forward thinking and true freedom that made it great.
1)Define "morality". Is holding murderers accountable who walk into theatres and kill 80 kids, a part of "morality"?
2)Libs made sure America's morality, per the conservative standard, were trashed long ago.
America was never a globally more conservative part of the world than other developed nations, until forty or fifty years ago. It was, by comparison to most places, a pretty liberal society.
Now, it's full of gun-loving; human rights hating; torture justifying; oppressive; fascist fuck-faces like you who don't ASPIRE to intelligence so much as try to mock it.
America was never a globally more conservative part of the world than other developed nations, until forty or fifty years ago. It was, by comparison to most places, a pretty liberal society.
It used to be the gun toting capital of the world and 95% white. The uneducated clown is strong in this one. You're a complete bafoon.
You do realize the CIA is effectively a law unto itself? The President has as much power over the CIA as he has over Congress or policy. He doesn't get to make unilateral decisions. The CIA don't NEED the President's authority to carry out operations, just like Congress don't NEED the President's authority to pass bills.
yes because the child will never learn from his mistakes .In my point of view i think that the child should suffer to learn or will he will repeat whatever nonsense act he did
WASHINGTON — CIA Director John Brennan said on Wednesday he would resign if the next president ordered his agency to resume waterboarding suspected militants, an apparent reference to comments by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump embracing the banned interrogation method.
Well Progressives John Brennan just said Obama ordered waterboarding because he was Obama's CIA Director.
Step Up CON and address an issue for once because i have shown you to be the fool you are with words from your Progressive Media. Damn you people are STUPID
We have evidence of the direct opposite of that statement. If you torture someone you really don't know if you're getting the correct information or if the person is just making something up in an attempt to stop the pain. That's how they got so many people to admit to witchcraft in the past, or admit to whatever it is they wanted the accused to admit to.
Ex-con, your question is self-contradictory and stupid. Torture is an extremely ineffective method of finding out if someone knows something, but you began your question by assuming that information has already been acquired and the person has revealed he knows where your child is.
Your question doesn't make sense because you are an American and Americans are trained to be stupid.
Like I said, your question is self-contradictory and stupid. Repeatedly reading your question is unlikely to make it less self-contradictory and stupid.
A question simply CANNOT be contradictory???
First of all, this is a statement which you have ended with a question mark, which is fortunate for myself, because it illustrates another question which is self-contradictory and stupid.
Second of all, you are as per usual wrong that a question cannot be self-contradictory. The notion of paradox is based on the concept of a self-contradictory question. Some examples of self-contradictory questions are:-
1) The Giants are the best football team, but are the Jets better?
2) You have blonde hair, but is it blue?
And last but not least....
3) I have tortured someone to find information about my daughter. Should I torture them to find information about my daughter?
Do me a favour and save your generic insults about reading to those incapable of understanding when they are talking to a complete fucking idiot.
John Brennan self identified as a non torturer while doing torturing, and the torturing itself self identified as massaging, thus it wasn't torture just cause... Clear as mud?
WASHINGTON — CIA Director John Brennan said on Wednesday he would resign if the next president ordered his agency to resume waterboarding suspected militants, an apparent reference to comments by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump embracing the banned interrogation method.
