The use of Torture can be Morally Permissible

Scenario Purposes Con starts off incorrectly. None of my scenarios were redundant. They each served a distinct purpose. Torture to stop much worse torture. This scenario addressed using the action that con is against (torture) in order to stop a greater use of it. It was made to ask the question, if torture is so bad, why is using one torture to stop ten not permissible? You’d be preventing what con already agrees is immoral. More typical, terrorist bomber, consequentialist outlook on torture. Was made to address torture in way for which the ends would outweigh the means. The benefit gained and the harm prevented would far outweigh the one act of torture. A less typical argument which coincides with deontological principles. This was made to approach the issue from a scenario where the common objections do not apply. Con somehow confuses 1 and 2 as having the same purpose. The fact that con mainly only responds to two should count at least partially against him in regards to the argument points. In fact the way con does portray my purpose for them is so skewed, it goes as far as a complete straw man which discredits his rebuttal significantly. Cons Requests Note, I have absolutely no binding to agree to any of the requests con asks for as none were stated in round one which they should have been. Denied. I do not see why I would need to limit myself in such a way. It does not matter if the torturer has any training in interrogation. Torture is torture. Whether the torturer is trained or not, does not matter. As stated, I deny cons request about interrogation training. I don’t think it detracts from the debate. For his request regarding average intelligence, if he means of the torturer, I will charitably accept. If he means of the one being tortured however, I do not accept that he must be of average intelligence but I assure con I will not go into absurd or unfair lengths making my case. I’m not a fan of that type of arguing. Hypotheticals 1 and 2 None of cons statistical assertions stand if he does not back them up with sources. Thus I do request he do so. He may say he has the sources but that is irrelevant until he presents them. None of these statements therefore bare any weight as of yet. Cons whole rebuttal can be summed up as follows; The torture would not work, therefore is not morally permissible. I find he has done very little to justify his first assertion. And despite making numerous psychological and statistical claims, he hasn’t provided any sources whatsoever. This obviously discounts basically his entire rebuttal. Without sources, there is no reason to accept his claims. What con fatally commits is a non-sequitur. His conclusions do not follow. He takes an inductive argument to postulate certainty. First he says it can’t work but the reasoning he uses, is that in cases of torture, it most likely won’t work. That’s like saying it probably won’t work, therefore it can’t work. It clearly does not follow. If it’s only probable, the counter result is still possible. So even if it were probable it wouldn’t work, it’s still possible it would work and thus could conceivably, which defeats cons rebuttal. The only way for cons rebuttal to work however, is if he were to prove that it wouldn’t work period, not that it most likely wouldn’t work which basically boils down to saying it usually wouldn’t work. Con actually says that he would agree with me if it were shown to be affective. That means, if the torture did work, con would agree that it was moral. But what con states is only that torture is, “more likely, and in fact much more likely, to yield incorrect information than it is to produce correct information.” So while I disagree that it’s much more likely not to work (which con gives no evidence for), con’s only argued that it usually doesn’t work…But he says he’d agree with me if it were effective. Since con has basically conceded that it could, in certain situations work, even if he says they’re very few, he’s essentially conceded the debate. So con never denies that in certain situations it could work, but also fatally states that if it were effective, he would agree with me. That means cons arguments do not rule out that it could be effective at times, but that failure to rule out all possible scenarios loses him the debate. I’m also left unconvinced that it would likely not work. Water boarding, one of the weakest forms of torture, if it can even be called torture, has worked in multiple cases. Its use is rare but it’s helped capture major terrorists.[1] So we have proof that water boarding is effective so why not whatever torture method used in my hypothetical? It surely could work. Plus we have to consider, the criminal would have more than just the absence of pain to gain from telling the truth. Surely telling the truth to the police and giving them valuable information would at least give him the possibility of a softer sentence than if he lied and so let the torture of ten people occur. He would have nothing at all to gain from lying. He’s not a loyal member of some cult or group, just a crazed criminal. He has good reason to give correct information. I’d also add that though some studies say torture is likely to yield false information, they also say torture is usually implemented incorrectly. This is often a cause to its ineffectiveness.[2] But if it is used correctly, by someone who knows what he’s doing, then it’s more likely to yield results. So let’s say not only is the interrogator in the scenario an expert, he’s one of the world’s leading experts in regards to interrogation and psychological related matters. Adding this one factor, it becomes a whole lot more likely that it would work. Hypothetical Three I never stated the torture would necessarily work, just that it conceivably could, which is all I need to do. Most of cons objections can be easily addressed with just a slight modification to the scenario. First con says this will just give rise to allowing the criminal to make more demands. Well suppose we have good reason to believe he will not do so? First we could say the bomb is a time bomb which would blow up before anything more than the one torture could take place. In that scenario, we would know he could ask no more demands afterwards because he would have no leverage or time left. We could also say he was a known infamous criminal who found trust to be a useful tool and so always fulfilled his terms in the past. After all, if you always keep your word, people are going to be more inclined to negotiate with you. In that case, we’d have good enough reason to believe he would let everyone go, if his terms were fulfilled. We could even say a lie detector was used on him or that experts of psychology determined he was likely telling the truth. I think it evident, there are easily conceivable situations where the hypothetical holds true. Con then goes on to misinterpret my hypothetical in a way that significantly undermines the point. I said an entire school was in danger. Con takes that number down to 10 children. I have to say that’s poor conduct. Con’s last objection is just unrealistic and exaggerated. He postulates that one single instance of giving in to the criminals terms would result in countless future scenarios of criminals doing the same thing. Well just consider, the high rarity of my hypothetical. An ordinary citizen voluntarily allows himself to be tortured and another citizen volunteers to do the torturing? Though it’s conceivable, it would be very rare. The terms of the criminal are also very rare. Who wants to watch people tortured? Well in the scenario, a crazed man with a twitch who built a torture machine that he couldn’t operate. For one thing, crazed men don’t really pay as much attention to the rationality of whether their plan will actually succeed. Two, it’s just highly rare. Con’s prediction is highly exaggerated. Sources in link http://goo.gl...