Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

First of all, thank you for accepting Hound. Now, for Con's first rebuttal. Sure, it's possible to think on their feet and lie, but answer this for me. How likely would it be for you to lie when your suffering and in fear of death? Also, what are your odds of truly making a win-win situation. When the details you give are checked and seen to be false, you will just be tortured more. So, isn't better to just tell the truth in the first place? I'd also like to point out that if civilians end up dead, you'll end up either in jail or being killed yourself. There will be no chance of freedom. Plus, I was referring more to the 9/11 bombings where a plane was flown into the target. So, it's hard to lie about that because only so many planes are flying, and flight paths can be checked quickly. All-in-all, it's better to just tell the truth, the torture will end sooner and you might (and this is a BIG might) get to go free. They might change their plans, but it's doubtful if they're under way. They also don't know that the captured person will crack. Plus, if they change plans then they take time, and they could be found during that time. I also would like to point out that the information could be a hideout. I've already addressed why lying is unlikely. Terrorists are not liars from the beginning, they are doing what they think is right based upon religion, so there is no argument there as to why they would lie. Plus, isn't the chance of getting them to crack through torture better than no chance at all, and just waiting for the attack to come and for innocent people to die? Who says you'd have to train someone? You could just get a list of people who would be willing to torture to save lives, and pull from that list at random. I know I could be on that list. I have absolutely no problem with torturing a miserable, rotten, no good terrorist if it means that I could save some American civilians. I'd really be fine if it could save any civilians of any nationality. I'd feel worse if I didn't try, and innocent people died. Plus, all of the arguments in this point include words such as sometimes and can. This implies that there don't HAVE to be problems. We wouldn't have to lose focus on our debt. It's not like the same person is going to be dealing with the torturing and the debt. I'd also like for my opponent to answer these questions. Can a price be placed on an innocent life? Is it really more worth our time to pay back some money than it is to save innocent lives? We aren't like them at all by torturing. They kill for some sort of supremacy whereas we would be torturing to save the lives of innocent people. I'd also like to point out that the only way to truly beat the terrorists is to make them more afraid of us than we are of them. Think about it. If you are bombing one building and killing a few thousand innocents, and then the US retaliates by searching out you, your allies, and the schools were you train kids to be terrorists and then bombing them till the ground is flat, who's going to be more afraid? You are, and you are going to stop the bombing so no harm comes to you, either that or you and every other terrorist will die. Either way, the terrorism stops, the torture stops, and the peace is restored. And yes, the information could be false, but as I've already stated, the chance of saving people is better than sitting back and waiting for them to die. Finally, I'd like to point out that my opponent's last argument especially is rife with errors. Thank you for your time.