a terrorist with a bomb in an unknown location ready to explode, should be tortured to get the info

My opponents only argument is because its illegal means we should not do it. This is like saying I should murder because i think its right. This analysis fails as it does multiple things: a) tramples upon our constitution which was made to protect rights b) takes away rights c) hurts our international standing Breaking the law, is well illegal. And therefore should not be done as its unlawful and is against the things we singed onto. But even if voters find my opponents we should do it analysis convincing it fails in the principles above. I will use those 3 scenarios and defend them in order. a) Tramples on the constitution As stated last round, the constitution already protects us via 8th amendment. One could also argue this violates the 5th as it forces us to plead guilty, so it destroys both amendments. But the reason this matters is because the constitution is important. The constitution grants us rights so we are NOT ABUSED by the federal government and remain a free peoples. It is also important as it creates a structure to our government and policies. As torture violates this, this is why we should not torture terrorists. b) takes away our rights Out rights are well and defined, internationally as stated we have a HUMAN right to NOT be tortured. For US citizens we have a right not to be subdued to cruel and unusual punishments, or be forced to say things that make us look guilty. Many of these rights are assumed, others written in treaties, and some in our constitution. Torture means it will likely make the government to overstep its bounds. People deserve rights, water boarding takes it away. This is yet another reason we should not water board. c) Hurts us internationally We have signed international treaties, it is now a law and its an honor system. They are taking our word that we will follow along with it. Torturing suspects that may or may not be guilty is counter intuitive. And even if they are guilty one could argue it is not effective. The CIA had to do it 266 times to some prisoners. [1] based on the fact by doing this we are: 1) breaking our word, and 2) using ineffective methods whilst breaking our word will not help our international standing. Have you ever betrayed or felt betrayed by someone? Other countries will get those feelings and therefore lose respect for us. And yet another reason why we should not do it. ********** So I win the argument. Illegal -> dont do it. Terrible idea -> dont do it. My opponents scenarios are not convincing even if we do know their guilty, as to get the info they still need to spill it. And as stated it is ineffective. [1] Likely because their convinced god said so. Point being torture is illegal. Also a bomb would not kill millions, unless they had nuclear weapons. But that requires plutonium which is extremely expensive. So terrorists would not have that capability. My opponent throwing around the word millions is just a scare tactic. At most he would be able to kill 100 or 200 with the bombs they could afford. Also, there are more effective LEGAL ways to deal with the problem. As time says: "traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects."[2] Summary: > Its illegal to do it, un american > A, B, and C show there are consequences to doing it > Other LEGAL ways which are more effective will get the information. Waterboarding is ineffective and can take weeks. [1] My opponents scenario states one day time. Pretty much my opponent goes on an opinion rant with no evidence or logic. It is illegal to torture and other ways are much more effective alternatives. Inflicting unnecessary pain is, well, cruel. CON has found a non cruel and legal way to get the info needed. Pros arguments are debunked. 1. http://www.csmonitor.com... 2. http://www.time.com...