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.
The system for human rights was there for a reason. To violate it will never be forgivable. But it is possible to avoid the wrath of the community under a good reason.
Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in local, regional, national, and international law.
It said Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). Which means that it is effective everywhere for everyone.
No my friend, you took it out of context. Human Rights are not a concept but a written code to be followed by everyone who considers themselves a part of the civilized world
Oh well, im going to sleep now. Please make me laugh harder tomorrow
Prove to me that it is allowed to violate it on foreign soil. Violate US law on foreign soil? Yes you dumb cunt. US law is valid only on US soil. Each country has it's own legal system.
I can't agree with that because even a criminal should be able to appreciate the fact that our right to be silent doesn't include the right to hide criminal plots and conspiracies.
What I mean is that, he has a reason why he hates you. True that by torturing him, you can save people. But that does not justify the fact that you violated his rights and became just like him.
I guess I believe it is justified in some cases even if it's a violation of their rights and I don't agree that I'm becoming just like him when he is trying to kill people and I'm trying to save them from his plot.
That is what everyone says. But the court of justice listens to both sides, including the enemy. To deny that you didnt end uplike him means that your definition of justice is flawed
You raise some good points but I can't agree that we end up the same when he is trying to kill people and we are trying to keep him from it. I'm not saying that torture is justified in every occasion.
If criminals want to believe they can't ever be tortured? That ok with me. I could even support laws against it but that wouldn't keep me from using it in a situation where I thought it was necessary to save others from being killed. So its a grey area for me and we can agree to disagree if you want to.
No they don't. They were captured by army as an armed insurgent not as soldiers. THey can be shot on spot. That is a big difference. Also they were captured in Afghanistan with is a "country" that never had anything like bill of rights
The Human RIghts bill states completely that everyone has the right for Freedom from Torture and Rights to a fair trial. That includes soldiers of either side of war.
Why not read the constitution before spouting some nonsense?
Ok, moron. With your logic is US legal system is valid out of the US soil? SO that means that every country's legal system is simultaneously valid everywhere yeah? So North Korea may demand something from you?
Dude do you even know the difference between Human Rights and Constitutional rights?
A constitution made for the US is useful only in the US. But a constitution made in the UN is effective everywhere. Stick that to you mind, dumbass hahaha!
No it's not. You are mistaking membership in UN with obligations to UNHRC and is not mandatory. You said that US law applies outside US soil, which is one of your many bullshits... so keep calm and ask your carer to help you with reply.
Inventing your own words again, I see.? What I said was that the law made in the UN is a law agreed upon by every participant. Any violation will face consequences.
The fool speaks because they do not know anything ;)
I argue that the lives of many people outweigh suffering of one person.
If a great catastrophe is about to ruin people's lives, and the catastrophe is man made, there's no reason to justify not making that person pay, and if possible spill.
If the person being tortured is not a good person like a terrorist and from the extracted information innocent lives could be saved from it then it is definitely worth it.
By terrorist you probably mean Muslim. Even if you don't, what's to stop the government from labeling certain groups as 'terrorists' despite the group not being a terrorist organization? Just as all terrorists aren't bad people, neither are all non-terrorists good people. Because you're implying anyone who isn't a terrorist is good, and what I think you really mean is just your side of a conflict.
Of course it has to be justified, because torture is just temporary, that person feels pain, but after information is extracted, pain stops (person either dies or is set free, not relevant) and there is nothing wrong with it. After all, if someone is smart enough, person can reveal his/her information before interrogation started so he/she saved him/herself from pain.
You're projecting how you'd react to torture. There are people out in the world who would gladly suffer than reveal information to the enemy. Even going so far as to die for it. Torture is unreliable at best, and if one must use it, it should be as a last resort every single time. I'm not saying to befriend the guy either, but there are more reliable methods.
Only when completely necessary. As in, if you catch a bomber he has planted bombs around the city and refuses to tell you where they were placed, torture is fine. He brought it upon himself. Only in situations where others lives are at stake, the quality of their lives are drastically threatened or nature may be drastically damaged would torture be justified. Otherwise, no.
You don't torture someone because it's morally just. Nobody's ever gone, "GEE. I THINK THE RIGHT THING TO DO BY THIS GUY WE CAPTURED IS PULL HIS FINGERNAILS OFF," and meant it. Unless they're sociopathic or drunk. Or both.
No, torture is something you do to someone because you don't have the time or the patience to dredge up the information any other way.
But you gotta understand: Sometimes there are time limits and you just can't run around chasing ghosts when you have a perfectly good pot of information sitting in someone's head.
So is it morally just? Nah. Can it be circumstantially be justified? Yeah, I think so.
Edit:
I should note that a given torturer should feel like a rotten bag of shit after they're done doing something like that. Like. It should haunt them. And if it doesn't, there is probably something wrong with them.
It's important that torture be clearly defined. Policy makers often times don't want to draw clear lines for torture because people may find a technical work around.
Broad definitions of torture can encompass a range of actions that many still consider acceptable, such as solitary confinement.
For the purposes of this debate, what is the definition of torture that we will be using?
One of the most infamous things about torture, is that it is never reliable. Some people admit to something they haven't done, simply to stop the torture.
If prayer didn't allow people to communicate with God it wouldn't have been used for thousands of years. Appeals to history aren't ever very good, you know.
Communication is by definition ''activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior. It is the meaningful exchange of information between two or a group of person.'' And since people you refer to talked TO god (he didn't talk back to them, or if he did, they were delusional) you can't call it ''communication''. Ha, you failed to realise basic concept of humanity and therefore don't say anything stupid like this again.
And that is exactly what I wanted you to think. People have been assuming that prayer works for thousands of years, and they are still doing it. Does that mean that it actually works? Of course not.
I was commenting on the way you argued: If historically assumed truth imply actual truth, then we can argue that torture works, because it has been used for thousands of years. But notice that prayer has been assumed to work for thousands of years, therefore it should also be true. If you want to keep to that argument you just presented you have to agree that prayer works. But you won't accept that prayer works therefore you have to admit that your argument is bad.
Guantanamo? They wouldn't torture them if they were giving no information. Also public defending of water boarding ...because it has results ...so yes, it does works.
It's counterproductive: "torture triggers abnormal patterns of activation in the frontal and temporal lobes, impairing memory. Rather than a question triggering a (relatively) simple pattern of brain activation that leads to the stored memory of information that can answer the question, the question stimulates memories almost chaotically, without regard to their truthfulness."
Many countries are strongly against it, which means that using it will impair international relations. On top of that extremism and threat of terror is enhanced in the networks that are targeted by torture. This essentially means that torture doesn't only produce unreliable information, it also tends to increase the thing it's supposed to work against.
It's not even a matter of justification to be honest. Torture leads to unreliable and inaccurate information a lot of the time. There are other ways to extract information, and of course I'm not against just straight up killing the guy if it's the enemy of a war, but torture will more than likely end up with the person just saying whatever they can to make you stop.
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
There are better ways of getting information out of someone. Not to me mention that if the person really knows nothing on the subject you are just hurting someone for no reason at all not only that it's even more inhumane than Capitol Punishment.