CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
21
Yes No
Debate Score:46
Arguments:54
Total Votes:46
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (22)
 
 No (17)

Debate Creator

Debater345(170) pic



Should terrorists ( ISIS , extremists , etc. ) be tortured for information ?

When a terrorist is captured should we torture them in an attempt to gain information or should we not torture because they have feelings as well and are likely not to talk anyway ?

Yes

Side Score: 25
VS.

No

Side Score: 21
3 points

I think torture is ok for the following reasons:

1. While torture may be no better than killing someone and in some cases worse, beheading someone for their nationality is worse.

2. Torture sometimes yields results

3. The people who are captured have often committed several heinous crimes and therefore I believe they lose their rights (i.e. terrorists).

Side: Yes
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

1. Torture not being worse than another unrelated act does not justify torture.

2. Source citation, please?

3. An assumption of guilt before being proven guilty generally accompanies acts of torture, given both prevailing attitudes on the matter (particularly concerning non-nationals) and the imperative of time urgency that precludes a thorough investigation and trial. Further, by this rationale it would be permissible to torture non-terrorists presumed to have committed heinous crimes (whatever those actually are)... which has consistently been ruled illegal and unethical by many legal bodies internationally.

Side: No
2 points

If we hold a terrorist, whom we believe has information that we can use to save others from continued acts of terrorism, it is our responsibility to use every means to get that information.

This does not include murdering children, raping women, or videotaping beheadings. These can remain the practice of the bad guys.

Side: Yes
2 points

If we hold a terrorist, whom we believe has information that we can use to save others from continued acts of terrorism, it is our responsibility to use every means to get that information.

And who bestowed the responsibility to the US? Also, what if the information is falsified? Or what if the information in the mind of the person being tortured isn't what's really going on and they were told this for just this occasion?

Then, what acts as a measure for responsibility? Then what constitutes the use of torture? What actions require it utilization?

This does not include murdering children, raping women, or videotaping beheadings. These can remain the practice of the bad guys.

So, if a group of people commit these acts torture is the logical response? I'm not condoning the actions committed by the perpetrators, but what makes it right to commit acts of violence by bombing men (regardless of what they have done)?

Side: No
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

And who bestowed the responsibility to the US?

We the people of the United States, have every right to defend ourselves. We field a standing army to protect our nation and its interests. We elect officials and collectively charge them with the responsibility to protect us.

So, if a group of people commit these acts torture is the logical response?

I clearly outlined the situation in which we are compelled by urgent circumstance to use the means necessary to defend ourselves.

what makes it right to commit acts of violence by bombing men (regardless of what they have done)?

The "right" is our right to defend ourselves.

I have read your comments. I regard you as a kind natured person with deeply held religious beliefs. I understand your feelings. BUT.........

Know two things:

Motive matters.

These things are Caesar's.

Side: Yes
Amarel(5667) Clarified
2 points

Presumably women and children are innocent. But why should we not videotape beheadings? Wouldn't it be useful to have on tape to put the necessary fear into the next captive?

Do you think that torture should be codified into our standard operating procedures? Do you think it matters that torture is usually a poor interrogation method?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes .

Side: Yes
Debater345(170) Clarified
1 point

While I agree , could you at least give some sort of reason , even if it's stupid at least say why you think this way .

Side: Yes
1 point

Mainly because torture is not a punishment and the detainee has the option at any time (even before the torture) to tell the investigator what they want to know...

Side: Yes
1 point

I feel like this has something to do with the recent headlines about waterboarding during the Bush era.

I would also hesitate to call waterboarding torture.

But anyway, I don't see problem with torturing terrorists.

Side: Yes
Debater345(170) Clarified
1 point

Yeah it kinda does . It has brought up the issue of torturing terrorists and I thought it would interesting to discuss .

Side: Yes
1 point

I have no problem with torturing terrorists. They are not uniform soldiers and have no loyalty to any government. They have one objective and that is too destroy the Western way of life.

But you must also define torture. To a lot of bleeding heart liberals, shouting at them, not giving them 8 hours sleep or three nutritious meals a day is considered torture. And I am not making this up. There are wackos on the left who truly believe this.

Do what you have to to make them talk and save lives. The problem is we don't go far enough with torture to get the valuable information out of them.

Side: Yes
Debater345(170) Clarified
1 point

By torture I mean like waterboarding , minimum amounts of food and water , beatings , electrocution , putting hot metal on their arms or even their face . Something along those lines .

Side: Yes
1 point

I think terrorists should be killed straightaway - I believe they should be wiped out completely. They are plotting sick plans to destruct the whole world - they are a threat to human life and have already destroyed countless numbers of peoples futures.

Side: Yes

What do we do to mass murderers in this nation? We execute them in every intelligent State of our nation. Hmmmmm let me think about this now....... is executing someone torture? Yes, I think it is. Terrorists are murderers. They are not an army fighting another army. They purposely murder innocent people who have nothing to do with the war.

They deserve to be executed!

Side: Yes
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

Multiple states in the U.S. do not authorize execution under any circumstances, and you have not substantiated your assertion that those that do are the "intelligent" states in the union.

You are conflating execution and torture, however U.S. law treats them very distinctly. The prevailing application of those execution laws that remain on the books is to minimize the infliction of pain during executions; the intention behind torture is expressly the opposite. You have presented a tenuous rationale for executing terrorists convicted of first degree murder, but not of torturing them.

Side: No
1 point

If one human lies between the U.S. or other countries saving thousands of lives isn't it reasonable that the rights of that person should be set aside and put the safety of many ahead of the health of one especially since most terrorists that are captured are criminals anyway.

Side: Yes
2 points

The unreliability of torture is significant. It is known that torture can lead to the victim simply telling their torturer what they think they want to hear in order to stop the session, regardless of whether what they are saying is true or complete. An unwilling source is an unreliable source.

Side: No
Amarel(5667) Clarified
2 points

That's all been demonstrated as true. But now we need to get down to a definition of torture. There are some conditions that may aid an interrogator which could be considered torture by some but not by others. It's not actually a very clear notion

Side: Yes

But now we need to get down to a definition of torture.

That is a very good and important point.

Could we argue that torture begins where intimidation transforms into actual harm?

And if we agree to that, would waterboarding or Batman dangling a thug off a roof (knowing full well he won't allow his subject to come to harm) count as torture?

Its this ambiguity, combined with the well-documented unreliability of the practice that put me into opposition to it, rather than the proposed rights of the torture victim (though that issue definitely warrants discussion as well).

Side: No

This was my main point as well. I also recently provided an article to a user that explain the even the best interrogators know that when people are in pain the will say what you think is right so that the pain can stop.

Side: No
2 points

No, torture is immoral, and not efficient. While it used to be. We've found better ways. Like Hanns Scharff.

Supporting Evidence: Hanns Scharff Interrogation Method (en.m.wikipedia.org)
Side: No
1 point

I have to post on this side of the debate because I don't believe it should be government policy to capture and torture for information.

That being said, I think that troops always have and will do what they needs to be done in times of war to win the battle. Ticking bomb scenarios pushes an agent beyond normal boundaries to a position that no group of peers would convict for. This still doesn't mean it should be standard, government sanctioned practice.

Yes they should be tortured. No it should not be standard policy.

EDIT: Of course this all depends on the world standard definition of torture, which is pretty weak.

Side: No