THW allow the use of torture on criminals

Bah, To have to explain myself in detail. Your Motion - This house as the United States would allow the use of torture on criminals Model -There would be a unit that is trained to do the torturing -Torture would only be used when the house suspects the known criminal is hiding information/intelligence that would be beneficial to the house -Torture would not be used if the criminal agreed to give up intelligence beforehand -Any form of torturing is allowed My objection regarding the 'Sadistic Choice scenario is this, The 'Sadistic Choice is often a scenario in which a protagonist is forced into a situation by a villain in which he must choose one person to save or another. Think Spiderman (2002) the bus of kids or the girlfriend. If a person asks you if it is wrong to let somebody die, The obvious answer is YES. But then they try some absurd question such as what if the only way to save somebody was to kill another person. As we can clearly see in the title and round 1, 'this argument is about the general use of torture on criminals when useful. To say otherwise would imply to me that Pro was dishonest in his presentation of this debate to possible opponents. He then comes up with an absurd scenario hat might fit in well with the TV Series 24 wherein many characters are under the impression that torture always works. But we are not discussing the absurd here. But rather the commonplace. The day to day question on whether we 'want to create an institution of torture by "Any form" to quote my opponent. 'He, And his side of the argument suggests to bring back the abuse and bizarre horror of such institutions as Abu Ghraib. Trophy photos, Dogs, Sadism, Sexual abuse, Death, Beatings, And far too much more horror. By people of the supposed 'Modern Age, Of one of the finest countries in the world, And part of an organization that makes effort towards knowing ones own responsibility and the courage to act on it. But far to often in 'torture we see a truism. People might say that certain 'others are pieces of sh*t that one should not hesitate to bring about the foulest means to the most 'righteous ends, Not hesitate to beat them with our fists in our supposed righteous fury and intention towards our ends. You forget that if you punch a piece of sh*t, You get it all over your hands. You forget that means are ends unto themselves. You forget that a people should always be wary they do not become that which they fight. When I say that some people will say certain tortures are fine, But not others. I am calling out against the implied insanity and hypocrisy of allowing an evil means as a solution. Many people in the 60s, In Birmingham once thought 'dogs and fire hoses full blast an appropriate response to peaceful protest. Why? Because it was considered near enough normative behavior during the times to treat a people that way. Shall we then break apart Pandora's Box? Place torture as a commonplace instrument in our society? Pretend that inhumanity is a value we all in the modern world should aspire? 'Oh. . . But for the right reasons, Of course (Sarcastic). We possess laws and government that give basic human rights because of how easy it is for people to abuse the rules. Already abuse occurs in society despite our efforts. Shall we make it easy for people then? Let torture become acceptable? Respectable! ? I refer to 'torture as a monstrosity of ethics. More so a system that acclaims it as a valued and humane tool of society. Even for the absurd 24 situation it is a monstrosity. Perhaps a lesser of two, But horrible none the less. But we do not discuss that one specific example, Hand built almost just for the argument of giving torture legitimacy. 'We discuss the round 1 premise, And the Title. Do not pretend that this 24 scenario is what we would expect when we allow torture. My rhetorical questions do not 'need to be explained. I have confidence in the intelligence of my audience. Though I'll explain the Legalism bit. Legalism to my understanding was a form of government that relied heavily upon punishment and fear to make it's ends. Do you think the type of people you suggest torturing are much less than madmen and fanatics? That they will be persuaded to give up their insanity by fear of torture? When often they plan to give up their lives? Expect torture and misery in any case if caught? Hmm, And now we come to my argument from authority, Which I knew people would complain about. Grumble. Newsweek - Science Shows That Torture Doesn"t Work and Is Counterproductive Talks about Disorientation impairs memory. Talks about people saying 'anything to make it stop. Talks about alternatives in which we need not filthy our souls with torture. How about War History Online - Hanns Scharff " Nazi Germany"s POW "Master Interrogator" Who Used Kindness Not Brutality By reading it can a person not understand the value of understanding the human mind more than thumbscrews? The Daily Beast - The Most Gruesome Moments in the CIA "Torture Report" You think that these men committing atrocity are not losing a bit of themselves? The Independent - "It never really left me": Abu Ghraib torture survivors finally get their day in court Salah al-Ejaili, A 48-year-old former journalist who was detained and tortured at the notorious prison, Still lives with the emotional pain of his time there. "Even now I still think about it, " he says. "I have nightmares where I"m falling into a hole, Where I have a bag over my head. It never really left me. " Mr Ejaili was working for Al Jazeera in Iraq in 2003 when he went to report on the aftermath of a bomb attack. He was rounded up by the US military on suspicion of involvement with the attack and taken to Abu Ghraib, 20 miles west of Baghdad. Thousands ended up in the prison in the same way " picked up at checkpoints or taken in random sweeps by the US military, Having committed no crime. Article goes on to mention the tortures this random reporter suffered. And on and on Google goes. Can you not see that torture is inefficient, Inhumane? Is pigeonholed as necessary and then jumps the tracks as we allow mass imprisonment and torture of the innocent? Well, Anyway, Back to the debate, Your claim Con didn't explain why it is considered immoral to torture people. Do I really need to explain to people why torture is bad? Why murder, Stealing, Or rape, Could be bad? (Incredulous) Yeah we drop bombs and kill civilians. Are you suggesting that this is good? Or that war is desirable? Why do you think many people only enter war as a last resort? But here you are suggesting torture as a common resort against people 'you deem criminals. Again I reject the 24 scenario as being a normative scenario, As it was not mentioned in round 1 or title. As for whose winning or losing. I leave that to the audience. Ah wait, An add on I suppose. I'd like to point out that there are a large number of interrogation techniques other than torture. As if I would have to explain that. In fact I'm not going to explain it, As I view it common knowledge. I trust the audience to have some basic understanding of methods of questioning other than sticking bamboo under a guys fingernails, Beating him bloody, Or really 'any method of 'torture.