Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Torture round 3 If ever there was a worthy opponent on this topic I'm glad to say that I've found him. I challenged about 6 other people that are anti torture to this debate and so far you're the only one that has accepted. So, thank you. ====== Case Pro ====== My opponent has said nothing about my Syllogism so I will assume that he has been unable to detect any flaws in it. Premise #1 It is morally acceptable to defend life if something of equal or greater value isn't lost. Premise #2 Torture is a means of defending life. Premise #3 Torture in order to save lives does not involve losing something of equal or greater value. Conclusion: It is morally acceptable to use torture to save lives. ================ The Daughter Scenario ================ "Even if at the time I wanted to torture the captor, it is far from justified. My personal feelings about my daughter cannot justify such a terrible act." I got him to say it. He would let his own daughter be dismembered and killed in order to remain consistent. I applaud him for this and at the same time I'm somewhat disgusted. I suspect that he may even let a nuclear bomb destroy LA if the decision on whether or not to employ torture was his. ======= Case Con ======= Contention 1: Torture is unreliable. "1b. Yes, my statistics are 30 years old. The Theory of Gravity is over 300 years old, and yet we still use it. Age is no indication of reliability. My opponent has said nothing but baseless claims and speculation. No refutation necessary." Asserting that torture under the Vietcong demonstrates the most competent, experienced, sophisticated, scientifically based application of torture is a ludicrous accusation. Good job on setting up a rather impressive straw man though. It probably went unnoticed by most people. My opponent contended that Vietnamese torture represents its most skilled application. He then laughs at how inefficient they were at using it. And from there he asserts that torture is generally useless. I'll just recap by presenting my old argument. Make the confessions under torture as unreliable as you like. The utilities of torture need only surpass the ethical concerns merely from using it in order for it to be justified. The torture of an innocent person in the pursuit of saving lives is unfortunate but it is far less horrible than the death of an innocent child in a war. I contend that this view is so self evidently true that anyone with the intention of repudiating it will have a burden to demonstrate why its false. Saving lives in the context of a war is no different than saving lives in the context of preventing a nuclear bomb from going off. The situations are different but the result in both cases remains the same. This is why the two are analogous. Terrorism need not be relabeled as an ongoing endless war for my position to be valid either. Justified wars are designed to save lives. Justified counter terrorism is also designed to save lives. To merely assert that the two aren't analogous when they clearly are is fallacious. And if we are willing to pursue a course of action which is guaranteed to kill innocent men, women and children then we should also be willing to occasionally risk torturing an innocent person. Collateral damage should be far more troubling to us than the occasional misapplication of torture: there are, after all, no infants stationed at Guantanamo bay. Contention 2: There are better alternatives. My opponent has failed to demonstrate how "brain fingerprinting" is useful with respect to either of the two hypothetical situations I raised or to counter terrorism generally. From what I have read it is only used to exonerate/ convict people of crimes. How is this applicable to our debate on torture? This technology can't get someone like Khalid sheikh Mohammed talking. It can't extract specific details from people's brains about future plots. It can't do what torture does. It can't do anything that has any relevance to anything we have been debating at all. I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up. Perhaps some people think I'm being to dismissive of "brain fingerprinting". I encourage anyone that thinks this to watch the following video http://www.youtube.com... It's only useful AFTER a crime has been committed. And since this is the case it would only be useful after the nuclear bomb has laid waste to Manhattan. Upon close examination my opponent's contention just falls apart. Unless he has something else up his sleeve contention #2 has been thoroughly debunked. Contention 3: Torture is harmful. Suffering is not measured in "less" or "more". It isn't!?!? If I punched you in the face that would cause much less suffering than if I took a chainsaw to your right arm. This is just stupid. It's beyond that actually its unimaginably asinine. Suffering can be quantitatively measured. "What if the person isn't really a terrorist?" What if one of the terrorist training camps we bomb turns out to really be a school? Q.E.D. You contend that torturing an innocent for the greater good is wrong. You also contend that accidentally bombing a school is unfortunate but morally permissible. I contend that your position is untenable. My opponent has demonstrated that his aversion to torture on emotional grounds doesn't hold up under scrutiny. This can be explained for the following reasons. As humans it is much easier for us to envision and sympathize with someone being stabbed with a knife or tortured. However if we drop bombs from pristine heights odds are we will never meet any of the unlucky people we kill. But they will still have died in an equally tragic manner. Imagine you have a grandfather who flew bombing missions in World War 2. This seems like a noble job right. Now imagine you had a grandfather that beat 100 combatants to death with a shovel in World War 2. In all likelihood the person flying bombing missions will kill far more innocent people, predictably, than the man with a shovel. The fact that most people deem one act more horrific than another speaks volumes to our inability to imagine and think clearly. "We have fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Torture takes away at least the latter two of these rights. It is unconscionable to torture another human being and throw away his fundamental rights. Resolution affirmed." Once again my opponent is coaxing you to follow your emotions rather than your logic. Criminals don't have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is possible for a person to act in such a heinous manner that society must rescind those rights. Let me just end by saying that someone like Osama Bin Laden would necessarily qualify as person that could, at least temporally, have there rights stripped in order to avert catastrophe. With this in mind the resolution that torture is sometimes morally justified remains affirmed. All the best, Freeman