The use of torture is not justified or effective

In times of war, the military needs information. That information is the key to winning the conflict between two nations, and thus governments will do anything to gain this information that could save lives and help other people. The use of torture can help extract this information. Before I move on, however, I would like to clarify some things and also rebut against the proposition's claims. First of all, the proposition claims that I have not made definitions, but instead quoted them. However, this is still making definitions, and it is the burden of the first speaker to make the definitions that will define the debate. Of course, torture can also be used as revenge or punishment, however this debate is focusing on the use of torture by governments, not by individuals to use torture to their own pleasure. The proposition also claims that my definition of justified includes subjectivity, yet it really does not. Many people, if not all, can agree that my reason of protecting the lives and rights of every citizen, is a good legitimate reason, and the opposition would like to challenge the proposition to give any reason to doubt this fact. Also, the term successful is merely used to allow a government to align their views into one goal. We have to consider something successful, otherwise there would be no goals in life. Lastly, the proposition's arguments against my definitions are purely hypothetical and philosophical. He merely states that "a term can mean anything due to a person's experience or ideology". The proposition expects the opposition to concede just due to the fact it has questioned my definitions of whether it would be universally accepted. We have to use hard facts to decide things, not based upon whether a single person will agree with something or not. If everything is open to be questioned, we can never be sure if something is right, which means neither the proposition nor opposition will win this debate. We have to agree on something, and it is the burden of the first speaker to lay the foundations for the debate. Secondly, the proposition has made no arguments or its own, but instead just focused on what definitions I made and rebutted them. I have already proved that the proposition's rebuttals are ineffective. The only argument that he makes is "the outcome from the use of torture can result in the opposite of what was intended", going back to his concept (not argument) of what subjectivity is. Also, what he describes as torture due to the fact that people may have some sadness due to the fact their evidence could have been "cherry picked". Is a mother who scolds her child inflicting torture? In both cases, this is not an act or torment, but rather just a single shallow moment of sadness. As I have defined before, torture is the action or practice of inflicting emotional or physical pain to make them give up information. Furthermore, I have established that the question of whether torture should be used by the government. Instead, the proposition merely moves on to lobbyists who are outside the realm of this debate. Thirdly, The proposition has stated that the outcome from the use of torture can result in the opposite of what was intended, claiming that the beliefs of the person tortured will become of the belief of previous non-believers. However, he has no evidence to back up this claim, just thrusting out examples for the opposition to interpret. We cannot simply say "just because this person was tortured, the reason why other people are following his beliefs is because he was tortured". Most people agree with the use of torture, therefore it would be unlikely they would follow other beliefs, just because someone was tortured by the government. Instead, propaganda or lobbyists would be responsible Lastly, the proposition has used no sources to back up it's own arguments. It has used hypothetical situations and claims for which it has not backed up with evidence. Meanwhile, the opposition has listed numerous sources it has used that prove it's own arguments are correct and logical. Thus, the opposition scores on this point. Now moving to further explaining my own arguments through a real-life example, backed up with a source, in which the use of torture has worked. People would naturally want to protect their own kin. Torture can be an effective method of doing this. There has been a case in 2002 where a man called Magnus Gafgen confessed to the murder of a child through the use of torture. Although it was too late to save the child's life, there was at least justice for the parents to whom Magnus demanded 1 million euros for a child already believed to be deceased. This scenario has proved that torture can work, and provide justice that people need. After rebutting against the proposition's arguments and rebuttals, it is clear that the opposition has the upper ground in logic, due to the fact that the proposition has only mentioned hypothetical situations not backed up with evidence, and has the good of the people protected through it's arguments. The opposition has clearly broken through the proposition's contentions and now asks for it to provide its claims. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com...