The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

Preamble: I generally frown upon excessive pre-emptive arguments, but then I guess the typical arguments in favor of torture are quite obvious, so I'll let it slide and thus in my opening address both the points in favor of torture and the pre-empt. 1. The Effectiveness of Torture I will begin by assuming the United States Federal Government does not torture for fun and it instead only resorts to torture for the protection of American citizens. If you wish to dispute this fact, I am more then eager to hear what you would have to say in that regard. Now if there was an impending terrorist attack, and a material informant was captured, The Con here argues that torture is an effective means by which to gather information. The Pro makes the argument "torture is ineffective and rarely works." This argument fails for a number of reasons. The Pro states: "they will say or do anything to stop the torture from continuing". If that is true, then if they knew the truth, they would state it, to stop the torture from continuing. This is a vital concession made by the Pro. Furthermore, agents who were assigned to torture potential databases of information could easily analyze and compare statements to deduce whether the informant is giving actual information or has simply ran out and is just making statements to stop torture from continuing. When being tortured, it is rather difficult to stretch creativity to make convincing lies, and furthermore, agents of the USFG will not be stupid enough to ask leading questions to get answers they want. They are not police officers trying to extract a confession, they are trying to save American lives. Pro has made a huge mistake in confusing the aims of police officers trying to beat a confession and the aims of Federal Agents trying to thwart a terrorist attack. 2. Discourage / Dishearten the enemies of America The second, often unstated, purpose of torturing material informants is that it would help discourage others from taking up arms against America. No one enjoys being tortured. If they see that resisting America puts them in danger of being tortured for information, they would think twice before joining terrorist organizations. Of course there will still be plenty of true fanatics, but by dissuading many potential enemies, we save both American lives, and the lives of foreign nationals, as well as force terrorist organizations to expend more resources in recruitment. 3. The Duty of the American Government The duty of the American Government is to safeguard the interests (and lives) of American citizens. This also addresses the second pre-empt. Torturing American citizens to save American citizens is on shaky grounds. The calculations of societal good are difficult to make. Thus the government should not take such risks. However, torturing foreign nationals, especially enemies of America foreign nationals is drastically different. As I said before, the American government has a duty to protect American interests. America has no duty/obligations to foreign nationals trying to destroy America and kill American citizens. Thus on the balance scale, the lives of Americans far outweigh the comfort of our enemies who are not Americans. Rebuttals: Now to address the Pro's only un-addressed point: Torture is dehumanizing and degrading and etc. First, terrorists, through conspiring to commit murder on a grand scale, through their actions already dehumanize themselves. By plotting to murder thousands, if not more, they have already separated themselves from the fabric of humanity, because no real Humans could commit such heinous actions. Humans are by definition filled with humanity, humans by definition are humane. Those conspiring to kill thousands of humans, to throw America into chaos and grief, these "people" are no people at all. They are beasts, savage animals who have already abdicated any rights to be called "human". And having done so, it is no crime to treat them as the beasts they have made themselves out to be. Secondly, the arguments that torture is degrading does not actually hold much water. The Pro did not actually attach anything to declaring that their life is worthless. The argument lacks impact. So what we declare the lives of terrorists conspiring to kill innocent Americans to be "worthless". Is this some heinous crime of tremendous magnitude? If it is in fact so, Pro has not actually shown the impact, has not actually argued that it is a heinous crime of tremendous magnitude. He simply argued it is to declare their life is worthless and assumed everyone would agree this is some horrible crime of tremendous magnitude. And for these reasons I am proud to oppose the resolution.