THW allow the use of torture on criminals

I would first off by rebuilding my points that my opponent previously refuted in round 1 first 1) I have a situation of using torture on a single terrorist would save thousands of lives in my first argument of "Torture can gain intelligence" Then Con refuted it by bringing up how some people might say it"ll be fine but other people would be against it. Con did not really explain how that proves why my point is false or little impact on the final resolution as Con mentioned that some people are for torture in that certain situation. Con also talked about how it"s a monstrosity of ethics to use torture in that situation. Using torture on a single known terrorist that has been known to be participating in the act of terrorism to pry out information needed to defuse the bomb with the knowledge that thousands of people will die, Not to mentioned the collateral damage that is going to be caused if it is not defused within time is not monstrosity of ethics. In other words, Con is saying hurting one person to save thousands of people is something that is outrageously or offensively wrong compared to letting that one lone known terrorist untouched and protected while having those thousands of people getting bombed. Wouldn"t Con would prefer the latter? And finally, Con mentioned it is a special situation that has no difference compared those sadistic choices hypothetical and asking me to check TV Tropes for example. I don"t know why my opposition asked me to check TV Tropes to look for examples, Shouldn"t they be listing some examples down, Therefore, I can know what they are talking about? And Con did not really explain why that proves my point is false or doesn"t make any impact on the resolution. In conclusion, My point all the refutation that my opponent gave is invalid and my first argument stands. 2) I talked about how announcing to the public that torture would be allowed implies that the quantity of terrorist would be dropped because they are gonna be frightened by the thought of getting tortured. Instead of doing a proper refutation Con asked me just the 4 rhetorical questions about the death penalty, Prison, Afterlife without answering it. Do the people on death row fear the death penalty? Do the prisoners fear prison? Or any supposed afterlife? Not to commit again? Con asks these rhetorical question above without answering it, Normally rhetorical question does not need to be answered by the asker if it has an obvious answer, But the answer for the question that Con asked is not obvious and some people would say yes and others would say no. Therefore I don"t understand how this is damaging my argument in any way, Therefore I don"t need to rebuild since Con did not do any refutation just by asking the 4 questions without putting in any analysis. After rebuilding, Con"s refutation is rasped and all my arguments still stand. Now I would refute the 2 arguments Con gave in round 2. Con"s first argument for the case is the commonly accepted notion because Con gets all these various sites saying torture is not effective when Con typed "Torture is effective" onto the search engine. Once again, Con didn"t explain why that matters and why it tells me that torture shouldn"t be allowed. I"m not gonna blame Con"s search engine, I do get these sites saying torture is ineffective when I search it up. However, Con cannot say this is a commonly accepted notion just based on what Con saw with the result he gets after searching up "Torture is effective" In fact, The real common notion is that American citizens do support torture to be used. The survey by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 2016 found that 46% of Americans consider torture a useful tactic, While 30% see it as wrong. A 46:30 ratio might not be considered a "common notion" for allowing torture but it is definitely not a common notion for not allowing torture. 2) Con"s second argument is that it is considered immoral to torture people. Again, Con didn"t explain why it is considered immoral to torture people. The second argument Con gave is similar to the refutation Con gave to my first point. So I"ll just use the same response: Using torture on a single known terrorist that has been known to be participating in the act of terrorism to pry out information needed to defuse the bomb with the knowledge that thousands of people will die, Not to mentioned the collateral damage that is going to be caused if it is not defused within time is not immoral. In other words, Con is saying hurting one person to save thousands of people is something that is outrageously or offensively wrong compared to letting that one lone known terrorist untouched and protected while having those thousands of people getting bombed. Wouldn"t Con would prefer the latter? Therefore all point Con gave is refuted and does not stand anymore. Now I would like to add an extension for my argument #1: There is no escaping the fact that whenever we drop bombs, We drop them with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, Disembowelled, Paralyzed, Orphaned, And killed by them. So we can now ask if we are willing to act in a way that guarantees the misery and death of some considerable number of innocent children, Why spare the rod with known terrorists? What is the difference between pursuing a course of action where we run the risk of inadvertently subjecting some innocent men to torture, And pursuing one in which we will inadvertently kill far greater numbers of innocent men, Women, And children? Rather, It seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage. After all, Torture need not even impose a significant risk of death or permanent injury on its victims; while the collaterally damaged are, Almost by definition, Crippled or killed. I used the blog "In Defense of Torture" by Sam Harris for my extension. Now I would explain why the side Pro is winning in this debate so far The argument that Pro gave is structured with layered supporting argument, Gave example and analysis to is while all Con did was a point with no analysis whatsoever. Same with Con"s refutation to Pro"s main argument, All Con did was "We cannot allow such a monstrosity of ethics" but again with little to zero effort in putting the analysis in, Con also gave Pro an example: "Check TV Tropes". From that quote, It shows that Con lacks the ability to list out examples from TV Tropes for Pro to refute. Con also didn"t refute Pro"s second point because Con only asked 4 rhetorical questions without answering or putting analysis to is. In conclusion, Con made little effort in constructing their argument and refutation. Therefore Pro is winning. . This is aside from the debate To answer your question whether I read legalism in china or not I have not read legalism but I just check it out and I am definitely not an legalist lol