Torture (See for specifics)

I won't bring any rebuttals yet, I'll just present a constructive (its gonna be pretty philosophy-heavy). My value for this debate is the Categorical Imperative of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The C.I. (abbreviation for Categorical Imperative from now on) addresses the idea of universal morality, and deontology (the ends don't justify the means). The two main maxims of the C.I. go as follows: 1: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." 2: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." My First Contention is: the first maxim of the C.I. -Act only in such a way in which you can will that it should become a universal law. In short, actions can only be moral if it would be a good world if this action was made a universal occurrence. Torture being made a universal law would result in a worse world. This is because when tortured, people are robbed of their ability to guide their conduct, and are made subhuman. What gives human inherent dignity is the fact that they are rational beings, capable of making their own decisions and guiding their conduct by moral law. Rational beings are the embodiment of the moral law itself. The only way that moral goodness can exist at all in the world is for rational creatures to understand what they should do and do it. So, if there were no rational beings, the moral dimension of the world would simply disappear. The moral dimension of the world being gone is an objectively immoral and BAD thing. ---If torture became universal law, people would be robbed of their ability to be rational beings. If people were robbed of their ability to be rational beings the moral dimension of the world would disappear. Therefore torture, as per the first maxim of the C.I, is an immoral act.--- My second contention is the second maxim of the C.I - treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means to an end. A rational being cannot (rationally) consent to being used merely as a means to an end, so they must always be treated as an end. Kant justified this by arguing that it is a moral obligation to allow rational agents to act. Because rational agents want to be an end and never merely a means, it is a moral obligation that they are treated as such. If you restrict rationality, you come to the same conclusion that I reached before with the whole "restriction of ability to be rational" and "vacant moral dimension" stuff. TL;DR, YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY USING PEOPLE ONLY IN ORDER TO ATTAIN SOMETHING. Torture directly goes against this maxim because torturing people uses their pain tolerance, dignity and fear as a means to attain some sort of evidence or admission. ---Torture uses people as a means to an end because they are being used to gain evidence. Using the people as a means restricts their ability to be rational. No matter how important the admission or evidence the torture is meant to attain, it is not morally justifiable.--- I rest my case. Torture goes against the maxims of the C.I. ,and thus, it is an immoral and non-justifiable act.