The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

"I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. The people that we are using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" on are not human and are completely worthless other than for the information that they can provide. If an individual that plans and orchestrates attacks on schools, mosques, police stations, etc. hasn't forfeited all worth to the planet, who has? The techniques are not used on average, everyday prisoners, but rather on known high value prisoners that have information about terrorist activities." First, this argument is circular. You can only justify the statement "they are completely worthless other than for the information they can provide" after they've been tortured, not before. So you claim 'It's legitimate to torture terrorists because we know they're withholding information, but we don't have proof that they know anything until they reveal it under torture'. You need some sort of external reasoning as to why we *know* that these individuals have information without using information gained from torture as a legitimation of the practice. Under the logic you follow, it is okay to torture someone because 'they plan and orchestrate attacks on school, mosques, police stations, etc'. However, again this logic is flawed. You only suspect that they are involved in these things, and then legitimate that suspicion with information gained through torture. It's like being back in the 15th century and having the Church call someone a heretic. They have no external proof that you are a heretic, and how do they get proof? They torture you until you confess, and then say "Look this person confessed! They are a heretic! Torture is legitimate!" Second, if we know these individuals are terrorists, and we know they have plots to kill Americans, why must we use torture on them? There have been individuals kept in Guantanamo for 5 years now without any charge brought against them. Is it really logical to say that they have compelling knowledge of an imminent threat to the USA when they haven't seen daylight in 5 years? There is no situation in which torture can be considered legitimate by external reasoning. The only way you can legitimate torture is by the end result, forcing you to forgo the negative nature of the action itself. The reasoning for torture can be defined as thus: 1. We *believe* that an individual has important information that they are withholding. 2. There is a pressing need to obtain this information. 3. We will go to any means, including causing psychological and physical harm in order to get the information. 4. The causing of that psychological and physical harm will be justified by the results we obtain. This logic is inherently wrong: It gives no value to the psychological and physical harm incurred in the process of torture. When you evaluate on a means-ends basis, you must determine if the harm incurred in the means is outweighed by the potential harm incurred by the ends. I would argue that to torture is to forgo the calculation of harm incurred in the means. You say "We don't care if we cause this person harm because we want the information from them." To allow torture is an unequivocal statement of disregard for human life. Yes, human life, in entirety. There is no clear standard which we can apply which says 'it is legitimate to torture X person and not Y person" because at the point where we come to believe that A. Torture is legitimate and B. Y person is withholding valuable information, we can then apply torture to Y. So to say that it is legitimate to torture some persons, you must also be willing to say that it is legitimate to torture *any* person that is believed to be withholding information. Consider this scenario: Your close family member/friend was involved in situation that could potentially relate to a terrorist attack. They have knowledge of the situation, but they don't want to say anything because their knowledge isn't certain and they're worried about getting it wrong, and getting the wrong person hurt. Is it legitimate to torture them in order to get that information? By your standards, yes it is. We can hold a Special Forces team to go check the information as soon as we get it from them. My question is, what happens if they provide the information and it is wrong? Keep torturing them? Maybe eventually they'll give us good information, who knows. For this reason, we have to consider that the harm incurred in torturing one person is equal to any end harm that could possibly come about. To legitimate torture is to declare that life in and of itself has no value, that the value of life is only arbitrary, and can be stripped away at the whim of a government or person. I think that covers all your arguments actually, so I'll just write a little summary here. The only way torture can be legitimated is if you have 100% external proof that a person *is* withholding information that will save other lives. This is an unachievable standard, I know, and is the reason torture is never legitimate. The only way to have a clear and uncertain brightline of when torture can and cannot be used is to have clear and distinct prior knowledge of someone who is withholding information. Unless you can be 100% certain that someone is withholding information, then the act of torturing them is an act which can apply to all persons who you suspect of withholding valuable knowledge. Since you can never be 100% certain, torture is never legitimate. Thanks for debating, please let me know if any of that was unclear in a comment and I'll do my best to clear it up before your argument is due, kind've just wrote it on the spot here :)