Torture can be morally justified

Please vote according to our arguments not opinions that way this is a fair debate. Thank you. Good luck Freeman. Disclaimer: I'm not here to advocate terrorism, Muslim supremacy, Guantanamo Bay is unjustified etc. These are just examples. I negate the resolution: Torture can be justified. Definitions (oxford dictionary): Torture-the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone defenseless as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. Justified-having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason, or moral. Observations: 1. Torture includes very inhumane actions such as stripping prisoner's clothes off, forcing male prisoners to have sex with each other; etc is inflicted on a defenseless and innocent person. 2. Because both my opponent and I live in the U.S we'll justify the torture techniques used in the U.S as the grounds of this debate. AFF Rebuttal: My opponent has not given any moral reasons why torture is moral thus there is no reason to support his claim. THERE IS NO REASON TO JUSTIFY TORTURE. His example about the ticking time bomb cannot be confined because that is one hypothetical example that has a very low chance of success. Please see contention 2. Neg Case: Contention 1: Morality can only be achieved through non-primitive actions and torture is just the opposite because torture practices very inhumane techniques that are often nearly fatal and causes the torturer to become increasingly bloodthirsty. As the torturer devolves into a more primitive being, he practices even more lethal techniques that threaten humanity's ethical standards. Washington Post states: "Torture is never justified. Torture dehumanizes the torturers, even more than the victims, and demoralizes the society that condones and allows it." In any extreme situation the interrogator must have previous experiences, but as described above this will only cause the interrogation to become excessively violent and out of hand without the guarantee of gaining useful information. How is this justified? It's not. Contention 2: Torture is rarely effective in an extreme case for several reasons: 1. Torture cannot guarantee the suspected is always guilty. Usually the suspected is an innocent. Torture an innocent that has done no wrong contradicts the human ethical standards therefore it isn't justified. What harm has the innocent done? 2. The suspected usually isn't highly involved in the conspiracy; it's like taking an unimportant part of a car, such as a windshield wiper, the car still runs fine without it. Usually the suspected is a pawn of the conspiracy, thus his connection with the leader is weak and the leader can simply change his plans and detonate the "bomb" earlier at the slightest notice such as a massive search of the "bomb", so by torturing the suspected victim it does more harm than good because it gives notice to the leader thus he may change plans, the guy doesn't know anything else except his part, there's already a massive chaos and riots on the streets so this will lead to deaths anyway, and the guy may give useless or perplexing information that leads to a wild goose chase. The suspected was most likely threatened death of his family to do his job, so by torturing him we wouldn't gain anything because if he talks his family dies and/or the information wouldn't solve for the "bomb" that explodes anyway killing thousands of lives. 3. After a series of torture the suspected (if he knows or doesn't know) will give out an arbitrary answer just to get relieve the pain. A large majority of these answers are false. The interrogator is under pressure during an extreme circumstance, therefore he will use any intensive torture techniques, that doesn't guarantee the answer and may kill a life, to get the accused to talk; usually under stress people make fatal mistakes and if the interrogator makes the mistake then a life or lives could be lost at his hands. Washington Post states: "Torture does not produce safety or security or even accurate information. Under torture, people will say anything, implicate anyone. The use of torture undermines our moral credibility and makes a lie of any claims that we stand for democracy or even decency." "In reality, under physical torture, people will lie and say anything to make the pain stop. This results in a mountain of incorrect information that wastes time and resources. It also sends investigators on wild goose chases. Worse, it does damage to our country's image and undermines our credibility. As USA TODAY pointed out, the perception that the U.S. government abuses prisoners has helped al-Qaeda recruit members. The Army's Field Manual 34-52, a field manual on interrogations, tells commanders that the "use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." Therefore torture is unjustified and a waste of time under extreme cases. Contention 3: Torture is unjustified because it favors racism. The U.S simply tortures a suspected Muslim because we hate Muslims involved in 9/11 and we believe they are the roots of terrorism. For example: when the U.S hears a bomb has been placed in a train, what is the first race/group we think of is responsible? Be honest please. There are numerous examples that torture favors racism in the U.S such as Al-Queda at Guantanamo Bay, Virginia Tech Massacre we don't trust Asians for some time, WW2 we sent Japanese into camps, slaughtering Native Indians, and torturing slaves in the South. Justification is the result of equality yet racism destroys it. Therefore torture isn't justified. Contention 4: Torture creates more enemies than allies. When we torture prisoners in Guantanamo Bay we are creating more enemies in the Middle East whom hate us for insulting their beliefs. Torturing creates no righteous allies, only allies whom are more bloodthirsty and wishes to spread the evils of torture. By using torture we turn neutral and/or supporting groups into enemies. For example by taking an inhumane action of massively bombing the Pakistani northern border by bombing the border where the Taliban and civilians live gave two results: 1. The civilians are now hating the U.S and joining with the Taliban for revenge due to the deaths of relatives in the bombings; 2. the previously Pakistani that favored us tells us to stop attacking the Taliban or else the Paki citizens will join the terrorists. Washington Post states:" Every time we torture, we create a hundred new enemies." Contention 5: It violates the democratic belief and strips people away from rights. Democracy advocates for equality for all. Torture violates and devalues these humanitarian ideas. Washington Post states: "Torture does not produce safety or security or even accurate information. The use of torture undermines our moral credibility and makes a lie of any claims that we stand for democracy or even decency." Obama states: ""What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values," Mr. Obama said. "I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices." Contention 6: Torture has long term devastating effects. As described above regarding making enemies this is just one effect. The victim and/or others associated with him will seek revenge and this simply increases the death and crime rates. Another effect is a new image of a particular race or group. Violating and restricting rights for others through torture is unjustified. The bloodthirstiness and inhumane acts are also unjustified. Torture has long term effects that inflicts pain and unsatisfactory for both sides therefore is unjustified. For the reasons above I urge a Con ballot. Thanks.