Torture is the future for investigation

Okay first I will point some things out again. You still have failed to give a reason why torture is better than any other physically and mentally possible of extracting information, by cross examining them. So even in a made up scenario where torture worked almost every time (even though it almost never works) you would still have failed to prove it is the best, as you have failed to do especially by not proving that it works even a majority of the time. Okay all that quote shows is that the ACLU believes that using torture as a THREAT, its undeniable that they benefit. Whoa hold on, in your own definition you said that threats do not even qualify as torture. here is the definition of torture you posted in your argument "The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. " So by your own logic, the kind of "torture" the ACLU describes is threats, but in your own definition that does not even qualify as torture. So for your argument that does 100% nothing other than show you do not even understand your own claims. But lets even ignore that (just me and you not the voters) and it still does not help your case, they say that they benefit from the fact that people understand the threat and believe it to be credible, again by your definition of torture that does not even count as torture, however even if it did, that has no specific examples of torture being used to extract direct, correct, and useful information. So yes, I still see you provided no specific examples of it working, lets move on. Okay the example you stated "one member testified that he stopped speaking out political and social issues because he does not want to draw attention to himself, which clearly shows that torture is effective in just the thought of going through it yourself. " Wow okay lets have a look, okay again by your own definition, fear of torture does not count as torture okay, so again that example already has no validity to your case. But again this does not show an example of torture extracting any beneficial information from any person at all. All this shows is people do not like pain, how does that provide any examples? People also do not like dying, or unhappiness, or anger, or a lot of things. But in any case if this shows anything, it does not show that torture is effective it shows that FEAR is effective, not at extracting information but simply scaring people away from things they do not like, and by your definition fear tactics are not torture. And if this even proves anything, it shows that we do not need torture we just need to talk about torture to scare people out of the public eye, which apparently only worked with one person. Again this is useless to your claim, and you provided no examples of torture extracting beneficial info. Okay again you say "break their will" again we all know this, but what you fail to recognize and provide a good argument against is that I had actual quotes from torture victims including John Mccain who was a POW for 5 and a half years is that torture extracts BAD information, not useful info, again you have provided no examples yet, lets move on. Okay and Abu Ghraib, "was asked during her failed trial why she and her colleagues had forced naked prisoners into a human pyramid. She replied with "as a way to control them" and it worked. Again by your own logic this does not count as torture, but even if it did, how does this show that they extracted correct information useful to their cause, thing is it does not. Again, even if they did, this would actually prove that fear tactics and some sort of "mind control" work better than torture, working against your own case. Okay on the movie. I assume you are talking about the Battle of Algiers movie from 1966, but since you never specify a title I cannot perform a true fact check. But assuming you are, since the description fits it, that movie is not a documentary. So the scene you are talking about was done by actors, its a movie, and as I stated it only works in movies, actors are not exactly the most credible source for information, especially when its a scene from a war/drama movie. SO yeah that is not a correct example of it, okay moving forward, still 0 real examples of it extracting correct information. Wait I just checked the synopsis and the scene you described is the exact opening of the movie, ha, listen an example from a scripted movie does not really work for this. As for your next paragraph, again we already went through this yes maybe they will talk, but I gave you quotes from former POW's that shows that you get WAY more bad information than good. Maybe in some very very isolated situations it works, but that could be said for pretty much any method used by the government ever. This includes fear tactics, which by your definition does not does not count as torture because it is not "extreme pain" or physical harm. Yes it can be accepted, but the debate is about is it the most physically and mentally possible method ever, and that is a moral argument you present there which does not help you. Okay and the Bill Clinton scenario, yeah I could imagine it, but do you-have any examples of anything like ever happening? No, not surprising. In any case, yeah I can imagine that, but that does not mean it ever happens. In any case, even if it did happen (which it has not) that is an extreme isolated instance (so much it has never happened) that torture would hardly ever be effective except in that instance. (Since it has never happened there is no evidence torture would work them other than assumption. ) Okay the president would consider it, and again that does not mean torture is the best possible method of investigation even if it pretty much always worked (it pretty much never works as we have went every and I provided examples which pro never bothered to try and refute). Again you have simply failed to provide any real instances of torture extracting real information and therefore there is no evidence that it is the best method of investigation or interrogation by any stretch moral issues aside.