Resolve: There are times when torture is okay.

Thanks. Lolwat? Of course terrorists would be glad to die! Their accomplices are about to strike, and the terrorist that is captured is the enemy's link to them! Dying because of this is ESSENTIALLY DYING FOR YOUR CAUSE. Lying to save pain is possible. They would contain you to check your information. In that time period, you have time to heal and think. Then, they come back and ask more questions and continue. Logic? Nah. Worse and worse things may happen, but they cannot kill the terrorist or they lose their link. Lose the link, and we're gone. The terrorist is bound to know this. They're dying to allow their plans to be carried out. Essentially, they're dying to kill the infidels. You've contradicted yourself in this statement, "but like I said before there's also a chance that you'll get correct information." You've stated that it's possible that they'll lie. That means there's a chance for failure. Later on in your debate, you speak of Murphy's Law, which states that "anything that can go wrong will go wrong." CAN lie, CAN go wrong. And it WILL go wrong. That was just a hypothetical. There's still chance for terror and you failed to address the fact that if they indeed ACCELERATE their plans, it wastes investigation time and the possibility of debunking the whole plan without having any casualties. Murphy's Law contradicts your entire debate. There's a chance the terrorist will lie, a chance that things will go wrong. That means that things WILL go wrong. That is what you used as a defense, right? Strange how it speaks strongly against you. Torturing is NOT the only way to try and solve something. If you didn't torture someone, it doesn't portray that you didn't try. At all. "Sure they lie." "Terrorists are not liars from the beginning." They are lied to, and they lie to others. All from the beginning. (Another contradiction on your end.) I've said it before and I'll say it again, TORTURING IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE A CASE. If they even had a tiny CLUE, it could build from there. Torturing is not necessary in any shape or form, especially if you're dealing with someone who refuses to talk. If someone has a will strong enough to kill themselves over their beliefs, you think they'll crack under torture? Lolno. "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." "Okay, I should have been clearer. I was referring to a sign up list that is exclusive to the military." Clearer? Those are two completely different statements. You just changed your original thought. ... So, we moved on from a discussion over whether we should torture terrorists to gain information to world peace? How does that even work? Eliminating all the terrorists in the world does not allow world peace. Also, world peace worth anything except total annihilation? Right, let's plunge the world into about ten more wars, kill millions of people, go through about another couple thousand Great Depressions, but it's all worth it if in a million years from now, we get world peace right? That's a Machiavellian way of thinking. So, because the troops have some sort of sense of morality, we're suddenly weak? Yes they're scared. Why do you think some of the most prominent terrorist organizations are STILL doing everything possible to evade capture? They're afraid, afraid there'll be detrimental ramifications if they're caught. Lol... we ARE terrorists to them. Our views terrify and offend them, which is why they're going all-out to ANNIHILATE us. You're misunderstanding hatred with haste. If there's enough hate behind a terrorist group, they'll concoct a plan so massive and detrimental, it could possibly be the greatest cataclysm of all time. You don't know the trouble these people go through to even get in the US, do you? They're not going to waste their bleak chances on haste. Yes, let's take over more countries. THE BIG BAD USA, HEAR US ROAR!!! That'll make us look GREAT as a nation, won't it? Right? .... Right? Lolno. That would ruin international relations (more than they already are.) Torture has a chance for failure, which you say is unacceptable. It shouldn't even be a last resort using your logic. Lol... both of your entries are brimming with errors as well. Since you're poking at me, I'll just point that out since I'm not usually a grammar hound. How am I advocating terrorism, indirectly or not? I'm merely saying torturing is not the best means, and is even deemed unnecessary. Nowhere in my defense did I say that I wished to "promote terrorism." What. I never said this would stop killings. Lolwat. "Vote Con to promote terrorism" There you go again. I'm not promoting terrorism; you brought up terrorists in your OP anyways. I'm saying torture is not needed and immoral, as well as ineffective. Nowhere did I state my advocacy of terrorism. Oh, and since you loved poking at my grammar, and even transgressed as to tell me that I should've been more careful, I'll just say this: you could atleast care about your own debate enough to look yours over. (like using the right form of "your," for example?) I thank Blackhawk for this debate.