Torture (See for specifics)

I'll start off with rebutting my opponents original constructive and then move on to defend my case. "I do believe that groups like the CIA should be given restrictive rights to torture, given that there are certain circumstances where torture is the best method to obtain information, and save lives." -----I only highlighted this quote because it seems to highlight major voting issues in my opponents case: that is, obtaining information and saving lives.----- "For instance, what if there is an impending terrorist attack on American soil, and you have in custody a terrorist who has a fair possibility of having information useful in stopping the attack? " -----I highlighted this segment because my opponent has outined something known as the "ticking time bomb" scenario, again emphasizing the information obtaining and life saving. The ticking time bomb proposes a situation where a terrorist knows the location to a bomb and hasn't revealed it. ----- "If the attack will be very soon, and other methods such as extensive questioning would not acquire the information soon enough, why shouldn't you torture that man? Even though torture is not 100% reliable, if you're on a short time table, and it's the only way you could possibly acquire the information in time, you should be able to use torture to prevent the attack, and save lives." ----- In the ticking time bomb scenario, my opponent allows torture because of the POSSIBILITY ("not 100% reliable") of obtaining information that MIGHT save lives. To rebut this argument, I will prove that not only does the ticking time bomb scenario NOT HAPPEN, but even in that scenario torture WILL NOT WORK, and actually WORSENS THE CHANCE TO SAVE LIVES. 1) "Ticking time bombs" happen so rarely, it is not worth allowing for torture just in case we encounter it. The only two examples the US government has given that portray a T.T.B. is Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. These are the only actually T.T.B situations on record. 2) In T.T.B. situations, torture doesn't work. Zubaydah and Mohammed were both tortured in order to reveal the location of bombs. The US government reported that the torture returned valuable information, but a closer investigation of CIA memos reveals that the information revealed by Zubaydah and Mohammed had no actual value to it, and the bombs were found in D.C. and Los Angeles without using any info obtained through torture. 3) Torture worsens the chance to save lives. In point 2 I showed that torture doesn't reveal valuable information. To further that, not only does torture not reveal valuable information, but it encourages lying. When placed under extreme psychological pressure, the incentive for the terrorist is not to tell the truth, but rather, to simply tell the torturer whatever he wants to hear. This leads to misinformation and a worse chance to save people in such a TTB.--- 3B) This is a subpoint to my previous one, but it is arguably the most important point in my rebuttal. TORTURE LEADS TO MORE LIVES LOST THAN SAVED. I have sufficiently proven that torture is not an effective method to save lives/obtain information (points 2 and 3) but torture ALSO further instigates terrorism. There are two examples that torture has 'worked' (even though it really revealed no valuable information) but almost every released guantanamo bay torture victim returns to terrorism, in the long run, causing more death than before. Even if we take a completely consequential/utilitarian view, torture causes more death than saved life. ----- "What if you've exhausted every information obtaining method that is an alternate to torture, and it hasn't worked? The person who has been able to resist extensive questioning and perhaps even chemical influence, may succumb to pain. If lives can be saved, no stone should go unturned." -----My opponent said "if lives can be saved, no stone should go unturned" but in my points addressing the TTB I proved that lives are not only NOT SAVED by torture, but DEATH is actually caused MORE through torture. Because torture leads to more death, as my opponent said in his final sentence, it is a stone that should be left unturned. ----- --DEFENDING MY CASE-- Maxim One "'This is because when tortured, people are robbed of their ability to guide their conduct, and are made subhuman.' I'll agree with my opponent that a person being tortured is being made subhuman. But what is worse, one man being made temporarily subhuman or being killed? Because that's a part of the criteria that I advocate torture under: the ability to save life." Maxim Two "I disagree completely with this Maxim, especially when applied to the scenarios I have proposed. I do not deny that torturing a man is treating him as a means to an end, but let's consider the end. The kind of torture I advocate has an end of saving lives. Imagine, you followed Kant's second Maxim, and failed to seize the opportunity to save many lives. How would you justify your inaction to the families of the people who lost their lives? It is morally justifiable to torture, as long as it saves lives." -----My opponents rebuttals did not address torture being wrong in the C.I. My case still proves that through the C.I. torture is wrong. Example A) "I'll agree with my opponent that a person being tortured is being made subhuman." Example B) "I do not deny that torturing a man is treating him as a means to an end" My opponent has accepted that my contentions connect to the maxims of the C.I. itself. Judging this case through the Categorical Imperative therefore leads to a negative vote. He instead chose to promote a utilitarian value over my ethical value. He emphasized "It is morally justifiable to torture, as long as it saves lives" As I showed in my 3.5 points in my rebuttal, torture does not lead to save lives, and in fact, it would save more lives to not torture because of its role in instigating terrorism. Therefore judging solely through my opponents own criteria of saving life, a negative ballot would still be cast. ---TO SUMMARIZE--- 1) My opponent accepted that my case connects to my value of morality through the Categorical Imperative 2) A negative vote further accomplishes my opponents value/ criterion of Saving Lives I urge a negative vote due to the fact that I accomplish both my own and my opponents value through my case. Thank you SOURCES: https://www.fas.org... http://www.nytimes.com... http://media.miamiherald.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...