So I decided to sign up for a debate. I'm supposed to oppose this motion. So, i'd like to get some help from you guys. I'm thinking, in the modern day, torture is mainly used to get info out from suspected terrorists. So I'm expecting the proposition to base their arguement on those lines. What do you guys and ladies think
I unfortunately don't have anything knowledgeable to say regarding this topic... However, In my honest opinion. If it works... then good. Some people deserve it. (Would hate it to happen to me though ) EDIT: OMGosh this was my 150th... Yay level 2!! Par-Tae time! Tmaps here I come!!
I'm not a fan of torture.. or harm in general :| So I'd be glad to be on your side of the debate lol. There's one key word that stood out to me in your statement and that was "suspected" terrorists. Most of them are just assumed to be a terrorist or have terrorist ties, therefore we could be torturing completely innocent people. Now, I'm not naive, and I know that most of them really do have terrorist ties, but there's always a couple who might not. Plus.. isn't torture banned through the geneva (not sure on spelling) convention? Or something along those lines? I know there are loopholes in it but I thought that that was one of the major components to it. Sorry in advance if this is completely off base :lol:
Ok maybe let me rephrase it, maybe the use of torture is applied to those confirmed terrorists and torture is used to try and extract critical info from them. Now, how would I counter that? They would probably be arguing along the lines of protecting the nation and for the nations sake. Now, I know that's some assumptions there, so I would love to see the view of people who support torture, and why.
Well I'm against torture... or at least, if it's being done to terrorists, I don't want to know about it XD So sorry I can't be more help!
Basically, I'm against torture. I'm afraid that people would admit to anything when they just get tortured enough. And really, I don't see how it gains any advantages. Harming people is just.. wrong.
There are torture means that are meant only to have a psychological effect on the victim. Like the chinese tear drop (throughly demonstrated on Myth Busters show). I agree only with these ones and only these ones should be legalized IMO.
Basically you take these two ideas, and pair em up, and you get my problems with torture as well. Put both of these together and you've got a pretty solid argument against "Doing it for the good of the nation", as Shawn put it. If you do wind up torturing the innocent, and then those innocent people in turn fabricate stories just to make the torture stop, these 'confessions' would also reinforce the suspicion that the subjects are terrorists. That's a pretty significant brand to put on an innocent person on top of the damage torture does, physical or otherwise.
I guess if were using our torturing techniques against terrorist who if given the chance would gladly torture us then I say why not? Might as well use the resources we have to get the info they have.
Sometimes a person may just be suspected or framed and yet without undeniable clear evidence, they may still be tortured. It seems unjust that a completely innocent person may be subject to such cruel punishment and such investigation treatment and have no say in it.
LOl thanks all. So at the debate, The prop defined torture as the use of sodium something (can't remember the chem name) on terrorists to save society. We attacked their definition with US ammendments 5 and 8 and the international human rights definition we offerred humane methods of interrogation and showed the ineffectiveness of torture. We won (mods can lock this topic or leave it open for more discussion)
I'm just wondering, but couldn't a terrorist just make up a bunch of stuff if they tortured them? You can never be sure if what they're saying is truthful.
ouch, i'm not that big of a fan of torture, but a thought is: what if that torturer knows information that can save hundreds+ of lives? D: then would that torture still be bad?