this person should be tortured

First of all, I would like to rectify some problems in the statement of Pro, in order to bring my opponent's statement into the real world. We are discussing the case of Bob, a person who may or may not have information about future acts of terror that will be committed. As we have not yet developed the technology to read minds, we cannot determine whether or not he has this information - in fact, if we could do this, the entire argument would be invalid, as we would have no need to torture Bob, we could simply read his mind. We are also not told anything about the evidence surrounding Bob's arrest. Nor are we told anything about the organisation to which he supposedly belongs. If Bob were caught red-handed, talking to the members of the organisation face-to-face, there would again be no need for his torture, as the rest of the organisation (or at least a significant portion of it) would already be in US custody, and unable to carry out it's plan. For any other situation, e. g. evidence from his computer showing communications with a terrorist group, there is always an element of doubt - his computer could have been accessed remotely, had these messages sent from it without his consent, framing Bob as a terrorist. We do not know if it is true or not. Next, I'd like to question the claim of 'there's no other ways to get the info'. How was Bob arrested? If it were by his computer communications, for instance, all tracking procedures should first be exhausted on that front. In addition, if it is known that the plan is going to be carried out, many preventative measures could be taken with regards to security forces around the country, protecting high-vulnerability groups, etc. However, even if there truly is no other way of obtaining the information, I would still argue that it would be less helpful to torture Bob than to question him using other methods. My reasoning is thus: Bob is likely a religious fundamentalist, and believes his actions to be sanctioned by some deity. He would therefore also believe that if he prevented the righteous acts of his deity, that deity would punish him. The general, Abrahamic definition of this is something along the lines of 'Burning in hellfire for all eternity'. Therefore, if Bob truly believes this, even several weeks of torture are preferable to giving up true information. He may, however, be weak-willed, and give up the true information under pressure. When he is tortured, there are, as I see it, 4 possible outcomes: 1. Bob manages to remain silent, withholding all information. 2. Bob gives out false information under torture, directing the Government to a different place than the attack happens, wasting their resources and aiding the perpetrators 3. Bob drowns while being water boarded, and 'forever holds his peace' 4. Bob gives out the true information, and the attack is stopped in time. In Game Theory, there is an idea called 'Least Worst Case Scenario'. It states that when there are two options, one of which has a high potential gain but high potential loss, and the other which has low potential gain and loss, it is preferable to choose the low potential option. This is one of those scenarios - I would argue it is worse for the Government's resources to be sent on a wild goose chase than for them to be spent on other methods of prevention. In addition, I have not even looked at the many potential problems arising from Bob's possible mental health issues. If he is actively participating in the torture and killing of women and children, it is very likely he has some sort of psychopathy, he may be delusional, he may think that he is in a terrorist cell and this is what led the US Government to capture him. In these situations, none of Bob's information should be trusted, much less that obtained under torture.