The use of Torture can be Morally Permissible

I thank con for the debate. I have found it very enjoyable. I’d also thank all voters for taking the time to read and evaluate the debate and for hopefully doing so as fairly as possible. Scenario Purposes I don't know why con still clings to his hypothesis that I only had two scenario purposes. Just because two of them have something in common, doesn't mean they have the same purpose. This should be obvious. I differentiated between all the purposes the previous round but con hasn't responded, instead still reverts to the fact that they're similar, which does not really say much. Con incorrectly says that according to my theory, it doesn't make any difference whether it's 1 million persons or two. Well I have to differ. As I clearly reasoned for scenario two, one reason why it was permissible was because the stakes were so high. If it were just two people, the stakes would not be as high, so con is clearly unwarranted in his interpretation. Actually, judging from cons entire rebuttal, I have a hard time seeing if he even noticed that I added in that part about high stakes countering in to the moral permissibility of torture. Scenarios 1 and 2 Scientific Evidence Con misses one important fact. The criminal conceivably could only have good reason to give the correct information because of the torture. Before the torture, he might posses enough loyalty or at least sadistic pleasure in wanting the ten people do be tortured, to not give any information then. He wouldn't have much incentive to give him any information, that is, until pain became a factor. Once he was tortured, he would gain a reason to give information. Con's scientific statements about the difficulty of telling the truth under torture all ignore one very important factor, which is that the torturer was an expert in torture. As I already pointed out last round, the reasons tortures often don't work is because the torture is implemented incorrectly. The source itself mentions water boarding as “an extreme stressor" which has "the potential to elicit widespread stress-induced changes in the brain” thus making it unreliable. This has already been refuted long ago when I cited sources claiming it's helped capture multiple terrorists. The source even says water boarding "in particular". This is saying water boarding is particularly ineffective when that's already been dealt with at the beginning of the debate. But besides all that, con's whole arguments rests on the absurd premise that the only time the criminal can give information is while he is being tortured. Even if it is difficult to remember the truth while being tortured, why can he not wait a minute or two or whatever is needed after being tortured? I'm sure con isn't saying torture leaves someone forever unable to tell the truth. So why can he not simply say he will give the information, then the interrogator waits whatever necessary period of time, and asks him to give it. The source he sites says soldiers found it hard to recall information. They were using soldiers as a test. I'm sure they wouldn't inflict permanent harm on them. The disability to recall information is only temporary. While banging someone’s head against the table while shouting at him to give him information may be a little silly in light of cons evidence, using the torture and then afterwards making the inquiry completely escapes con's contentions. Con's arguments all also ignore the fact that we have enhanced methods of discerning whether someone is telling the truth or not. I can't provide any new sources in the last round, but I'm sure everyone's heard of a lie detector. Morality Stakes: Con says one must not commit an act he knows is likely not to work. This basically means one must have belief that it will work. Well to start off with one of many sound objections to this, what about taking into account the risks? Must we never be cautious or take risks? I already stated in last round, that whether scenario two worked or not, the risks were so high that the man was fully justified in implementing the torture. Millions of deaths are too high a stake to not take the risk. Even if the torturer thought it wouldn’t work, he still believed it could. If he didn’t do anything, millions would inevitably die. If he did do something, it changes the inevitable to just a small likelihood. Using the torture in light of the lives at stake, would be permissible regardless of whether it would probably work or not. Con didn't even respond to that when I stated it last round despite it being very relevant to most of his rebuttal. Self-Refuting: Con's argument is also completely self-refuting. By his own standard, if someone didn't know that it likely wouldn't work, than he is not acting immorally. If someone thought it would work, according to con, he wasn't acting immoral. So if the torturer thought the torture would work, he was justified in doing it. It is completely conceivable to believe in certain scenarios, someone would have good enough reason to believe the torture would work. Even if statistics and experts all said it likely wouldn't work, that doesn't mean the interrogator knows that. If he's not aware of it, then by all data he's aware of, he could have good belief to believe the torture would work. According to con, this means it would be permissible. Reasonable Belief that the Torture would Work: Not everyone would have to be ignorant of psychological research to have reasonable belief that it would work however. Con never addresses that the men in scenario one and two are each one of the world’s leading expert interrogators. Because of this, they know exactly how to enact a torture. Like I showed in the previous round, when tortures don't work, it's usually because they're implemented wrongly. If it were experts handling it however, they would know how to enact the torture in the most effective ways, therefore having good enough reason to believe they could make it work. In fact, as experts, they would have a little justified arrogance over their abilities and thus would justifiably believe it would work. Since con advances a moral criteria based entirely upon belief and probability, this refutes him. Dumb Luck?: Con's assertions, that it would only work by "dumb luck" are completely unwarranted and entirely undefended. Besides just stating it, he doesn't even explain how it's just luck when torture works. It's not luck. That's absurd. Does con think the water boarding used that I mentioned last round that gathered valuable information on terrorists, was just luck? It wasn't luck. It was because of trained interrogators who knew what they were doing. Studies: I never accused con of supporting non-existent studies. I just said he never provided any sources which is 100% truth. Don't know why con is making a qualm about it. It's only natural that sources are required when making statistical claims. Scenario 3 Con almost completely drops this. Last round his counter argument was merely an array of unsupported assertions. Now it's simply an unsupported assertion made by someone else that’s just a recap of all his previous unsupported assertions. He ignores my entire refutation and purports to basically the exact things he said initially as if I didn't provide a counter argument. None of his previous objections apply to this scenario. The probability of it working for example is irrelevant as the one being tortured volunteered to be tortured. The scientific evidence also bares no weight because this isn’t about gathering information. Con does add one contention that supposedly responds to all scenarios but all it is is stating that he can’t prove anything with certainty which I don’t see any relevance and the continued assertion that dumb luck is irrelevant. But scenario three has nothing to do with dumb luck. Even if it were dumb luck, it’s about permissibility, not obligation. We’re not arguing it’s morally good, just that it’s permissible.