It is never justified to torture terrorists.

As this is the final round, I shall simply post a conclusion, as per standards.In this debate, I have attempted to show that there is no scenario in which we could propose adequate reason to torture people in order to learn where a nuclear warhead is in NYC. My opponent's previous examples, as I have shown, have been flawed. The additional answers have simply made using torture less and less sensible. We have now been tracking the bomb and nuclear materials, have other witnesses who would most likely know at least roughly where the bomb would be, and yet we still don't know anytihng about the bomb? This is getting ludicrous. The FBI, who are tracking the bomb, would know where it is. Even if they don't, they'd have the nuclear material tracked, as we use Muon Tomography[1]. And once we find the weapon, by torturing the person, we'd still need to know how to disarm it. That's where NRFS, or Nuclear Resonance Flourescence Systems, comes into play[2]. This helps us discover how to disarm the warhead, long story short. But how does the technology work? "Photons resulting from NRF are differentiated from the incoming photon beam because the latter produces a broad continuum of photon energies while photons generated by NRF produce very narrow peaks. Further, the photon beam travels in a forward direction, while the NRF signal is emitted in all directions, so a photon detector placed behind and to the side of the material being interrogated (relative to the direction of the photon beam) detects photons traveling backward from the beam direction, which are mainly NRF photons. " The technology "can scan a cargo container quickly for SNM and high-Z shielding material. The average scan rate for the EZ-3D mode is 15 seconds", by the average civilian, according to a Stanford study[3], and size compacted into "two feet"[2]. But even if this technology did require specialist users, we still have technology such as PITAS, or ISIS, which work between "100 and...1000 metres" depending on how the device is used. With such an item able to cover and protect the region of NYC, it is simply certain to be usable. Facts are facts: thanks to modern science, torture is out of date.And regarding Iran, very quickly we know Iran has nuclear material, and they haven't denied that. However, they won't let us in Tehran to check if they are building nuclear warheads or nuclear experimental facilities. No matter how good the radiation detection technology is, we can't differentiate whether it is a testing facility or a warhead. Of course, in NYC, if the government does not know about it, it's illegal to hold nuclear warheads or nuclear testing sites. So either way, this is not a problem. In short, we know Iran has nuclear power, just not sure how the nuclear power is used. Either way, we know that they currently do not have nuclear warheads, and no-one suggests that they do. Even Panetta predicts over 3 years until Iran gets a warhead.If we are saying we don't know what city, we've basically got an even larger scavenger hunt going on. Ignoring how first round was for acceptance & definitions, and I accepted the hypothetical for discussion was in NYC, what we've got is a system where we are torturing someone because somewhere there might be a nuclear warhead. I got to say to that: how the hell is there a nuclear weapon in the country which we know of, that we've been tracking, yet suddenly it disappears and we've only just decided, a day before the bomb will go off, that we're going to do something? It's an event of impossibilities, now. The correct thing to do would have been to actually have been looking for the warhead, not fondling with ourselves while we got a bomb with terrorists in the country.My opponent says I am ignoring reality: I am saying he is. He is creating more impossible scenarios in order to justify some sadistic reason to torture, and call it 'justified'. We have not seen any circumstance in which it is justified to torture a man because he says he's planted a bomb. We still have no reason to believe him, except other corroborating evidence magically coming out of thin air, enough to arrest and stop many people, yet we don't for no reason other than the enjoyment we get from doing nothing while such a massive threat is in the country.My opponent seems not to dispute that he has not provided any reason for the pragmatic approach to this problem. I have provided the moral one. It is immoral to use torture, and we know it intuitively. I have given reason to suggest this. My opponent, though, has given none. In fact, he rejects political pragmatism, stating this debate is "clearly about the moral decisions", yet only wants to discuss how it is pragmatic, not moral. We intuitively know that torture is immoral, as I shown in the first (or second, depending on how it is read) round. My opponent still has not disputed this. In fact, he still has not given any precedence or reason to suggest that torture would work: I have provided reason why a tortured victim would lie. Indeed, terrorists are trained to withstand torture, and give out false information to cause more problems.[4] Even government-led studies have only shown the ineffectiveness of torture[5]. Yet my opponent still claims that torture works. He has not provided any reason to why, I have previously and repeatedly till the very end provided reason why it fails. In light of this, I urge a vote for fairness, for intelligence, and for PRO. 1 - http://www.fas.org...;(cited every round so far), page 56.2 - Ibid, page 70. 3 - Ibid, 73/4 4 - http://www.reuters.com...5 http://www.osborneink.com...