It is never justified to torture terrorists.

Would the terrorist spill the beans?Let's look at this with all level of seriousness: A man comes up to the police station, and says "Hey guys! Guess what? I planted a bomb in the city! lol!", and then what happens? We ignore the insane maniac, at most lock him up due to insanity. Do we take him seriously? Not until he starts blowing things up. And when he does blow things up, the idea that he'd lie is still perfectly strong. It takes incredible guts to torture a man based on the idea that he says he planted a bomb. When terrorism is involved, people make things up to take credibility: for example, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility to 7/7, independent groups claiming responsibility, shouts that it was illuminati... the claims of responsibility go on and on: we'd not end up torturing one person, but dozens and dozens for no reason whatsoever. And yes, it is unreasonable for one to say you've committed terrorism, proide proof, then not speak about where the boom is, whilst taking the person seriously. My opponent has given no precedence for why we would take him esriously, but I shall: people claimed they will cause the events of 7/7, 9/11, murder of Fortuyn, and many other large events[1]. If we took it seriously, we'd have a ludicrous number of crimes to deal with: we'd be torturing people on such a scale that it becomes inprofitable to do this. We'd have starte d torturing thousands of people, week in week out, due to the minor possibility of a threat. Thus, it is unreasonable to promote torture, due to firstly the immorality of torturing people on flimsy evidence, and secondly the impracticality of it all. The truth is, we'd have a single case of retrospective empiricism where we look at the single event and say that maybe it caught someone, then have thousands and thousands of cases where we randomly and gratuitously torture people. Are there other means of finding the bomb?My opponent claims that my sources do not help within the time constraints. I disagree. Firstly, the link cites Nanocomposite Scincillators. This technology allows us to have "fast and effective detection of gamma radiation" through a crystal sized at roughly a milimetre[2]. Gamma Ray Spectrum analysis also can be used to detect within an instant areas the size of "a port or border crossing"[3]. Thirdly, there is Low-Risk Dual-Energy Radiography, which can detect radioactive cargo. We have many means at our disposal to detect the nuclear weapon. The means are there.Is it possible in the time frame?Let's do the maths. The case is New York City. The active police force for duty is 34,500[4]. If, in the irrational circumstance, we do decide this terrorist is telling the truth, we send out, say, half the policemen to look around the areas. That's 17,250. The area of NYC is 469 square miles. This means that they'd have to cover 46 metres each to cover the city. I'll say that again. 46 metres. How long does it take to cover 46 metres? If it takes a day, someone is not doing their job right. Or let's look at this another way. A policeman could easily cover a square mile in a day thoroughly. This means they'd have to send what, 469 policemen out to look over New York City? That's less than the amount of people on the beat anyway! There is no problem. Finally, all hope being lost, we could still rule out certain areas with basic certainty. For example, would the bomb be in the police station? No? Rule out about half a mile. Rich areas or major businesses? No, rule out a few dozen miles. We go like this, and we'd eventually cut it down to, say, 50 miles of viable targets. That's 50 policemen needed to search. No problem. Finding a needle in a haystack is a problem within, say, five minutes and only one person. But a full day with thousands of people? Unless the haystack is the size of Wales, then there's no problem.Because it's their fault, so I can do what I want.Let's evaluate what has been said. My opponent claims that, in the ticking time bomb scenario, if we do not stop the bomb, millions of people will die. Firstly, this is false, as shown above. We can easily find a bomb in a single day, certainly find it in three. Secondly, no police force would take a lunatic claim on the scale of Joker or The Penguin threatening to bomb the city any more than they'd take seriously the claim that Jupiter is the source of France's owl population. Thirdly, we have easy ways to detect the bomb. Fourthly, we can, all else in the impossibility of failing, evacuate the city. So he concludes that, ignoring all this, we can do what we want, because he's a bad, bad man. We can forgo right and wrong, because we want to torture this man to find unreliable information. My opponent has given no reason to justify why his horrible sense of morality is better than one with actual clear guidelines, and simply states that I am being immoral. Clearly, by the standard which we all possess, I am not. In reality, my opponent is being immoral.But does this mean that we cannot torture them?Torture is immoral, and it is wrong, and it should not be done. But is it politically pragmatic? Quite possibly, yes. But this does not change how it is immoral. My opponent is arguing from political pragmatism, saying that the pragmatic option is best. But my opponent has not justified that political pragmatism is what is best. He has simply stated that we ought to do what is politically pragmatic, but not justifying this. Nor has he justified why it is politically pragmatic. Is it politically pragmatic to torture people?Let's look at this from the perspective of those who have to do the torturing: should they break the law? No, they should wait for presidential permission. Should the president give an A-OK to torture? Well, seeing how Obama's main political promise was to stop torture, the promotion of torture is politically worse than the very minute chance of people dying. If the chance is one in a thousand (which is very, very generous) of someone dying, and one in one of people being pissed off and voting him out of office, the politically pragmatic decision is still to not torture the people involved.Do I have to show that torture never works?No. I have to show that intelligence dictates it will not work. Have I shown that? Considering how torture the vast majority of times would lead to an hour of the tortured saying nothing, then creating a wild goose chase until the bomb goes off, or the person not saying anything at all (still ignoring the much more likely option that the man or woman is simply insane), and that torture is a worse option to the possibility of looking for the bomb, then I have fulfilled my burden to show the correct response in the circumstance.To concludeTorture doesn't work. Torture is firstly inherently immoral, as I have shown through an observation of our own morality. My opponent has not justified his through moral observation. I have shown through practical knowledge and science that the alternatives are more likely to succeed. My opponent has not shown how torture is more profitable than looking for the bomb. I have shown how torture gives bad results. My opponent simply concedes this point. Finally, I have shown how torture is politically unpragmatic. My opponent is yet to justify why pragmatism is moral to begin with, yet alone why it is the pragmatic option. I hope you hold this in mind.Round Four for conclusions: no new arguments. Thank you for reading.1 - http://www.scoop.co.nz... example 2 - http://www.lanl.gov...;(text & picture)3 - http://www.fas.org...4 - http://www.nyc.gov...4 - google "size of NYC"