Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

Just because a few terrorists don't care about dying, it doesn't mean that all terrorists are ready to go die in a torture chamber. First of all, if you were the one charging in to die, then being captured itself would stop the plan. And lying to save pain, and then rinse and repeat? That's not possible. Torture brings pain, and when they realize you've lied, then they'll do worse and worse things to you. Plus, to terrorist, it's good to die if you kill an infidel, but to be tortured to death? That's not even honorable by the terrorists' standards. It CAN happen that they'll lie, but like I said before there's also a chance that you'll get correct information. Sure, they may cause some harm, but it will still be substantially less harm than if they got to execute their entire plan. Plus, think of Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If they rush, they will make errors, and their plan will fail. Think roughly, oh , 7 months ago I think it was, there was a car bomb that failed to go off in New York. Now, that happened because all of the proper preparations weren't taken. In your revised scenario, you allow an opportunity for failure. Back to the New York incident. Put your place in my shoes(I will explain). My mother was up in New York that night. If that bomb had gone off, she could have been hurt or killed. Now, what if they had a prisoner who, if they had tortured them, would have given the information to stop the attempt. Now, if they had this ability, and passed it up because there was a chance that the terrorist wouldn't have cracked, you'd be pretty upset, wouldn't you? Point proven. Sure they lie. It doesn't matter how they recruit people. So, we torture them and they don't crack. We may or may not be screwed, it depends on what information we want. Publication of capturing a terrorist and endangering his life would do nothing. Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay? Torturing IS better than nothing because with nothing, if the s**t hits the fan, people will feel bad for doing nothing. If they do torture and the s**t hits the fan, then at least they tried. Finally, interrogation and threats do nothing. Imagine this, your a terrorist, and get captured. Your capturers tell you that if you don't answer their questions, they'll beat you. You take a chance and refuse to answer, and they make the same threat again. You now realize that nothing will happen to you, and stay quiet. If they do beat you, however, then you're being tortured into compliance. Finally, water boarding isn't the only method of torture. Okay, I should have been clearer. I was referring to a sign up list that is exclusive to the military. Yeah, hunting is another discussion for another time. It will happen just as soon as we finish this debate, and my opponent can start it, assuming you are against hunting. Money is not a waste if we save lives, and my opponent has admitted that lives are important. So it's unnecessary to torture even if it saves lives? That's a very sadistic thought. Finally, it can instigate lies, but it can also instigate the truth. Torture and peace can go hand in hand. We just need to step back in order to reach the goal. World peace is worth anything except total annihilation. If it requires torturing some of the world's lowest scum, then fine so be it. They aren't scared of us because we are weak spineless liberals. We set troops over there, but those troops won't fire unless fired upon, they won't fire at insurgents hiding behind women and children even if the women and children are there voluntarily, and we haven't bombed one building. We are like a fricken paper cut. Yea it hurts, but ultimately nothing bad happens. Frightening them using psychological warfare? Now that could work. Random bombings were terrorists are none to be. Shoot every enemy with a gun. Intercontinental ballistics. That will get the job done, but changing their government? No way. They are terrorists because they TERRIFY us, and we can't do anything because of poor judgment and morals in this situation. If we were the terrorists to them, you can bet your *** they'ed stop because they'd be TERRIFIED. I've already explained that they are fearless because we do nothing, so it doesn't matter how many of us die. They are safe. It will do something, it will help with the fear factor on our side. Plus, if they hate us more, they attack more. This gives 2 openings. 1) we can capture insurgents trying to quickly attack, but screwing up instead. 2) We can march into more countries with NATO and take over thus furthering our goals. If we are occupying more countries, then there are less safe havens for terrorists. Pleas explain the irony. No, it's not the only way, but it's better than nothing, so torture still stands as a last resort. I won't deny I have some grammatical errors. Even though I haven't seen them, I'm sure they're there. But I've got much fewer than you. Both of your entries have been rife with errors. It doesn't matter if you are using a touch screen, you can be more careful. ""Vote Con to promote terrorism" Rofl. That's not even what I'm advocating. Lol. " No, that's not what you're advocating directly, but ultimately it is. Try to follow this.