The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations.

It’s been a pleasure debating you Roy. Final round here we go. Effectiveness My opponent states, “I acknowledged at the outset there is no certainty claiming only the “potential” for saving lives.” While true, he continually misconstrues just what this potential is, claiming, “That is about 99.8% certainty that the information will be successfully obtained through harsh interrogation once conventional interrogation fails”. To clarify the effectiveness argument – what my opponent shows is that the use of harsh interrogation produces some information; however, what my first point illustrates is the multiple reasons why torture likely won’t produce accurate information. When evaluating the ticking time bomb situation, what my case upholds is that torture likely will not save lives because we most likely won’t get true information. This drastically reduces its potential to save lives – showing why its use in ticking time bomb situations is not justified. a) First, my opponent did not re-attack my sources after I rebuilt them last round, thus my evidence showing how likely people are to lie under harsh interrogation stands. Second, my opponent essentially claims that this is a non-unique point since conventional interrogation fails. This is not true; while both are ineffective to some degree, conventional interrogation isn’t shown to produce false information like harsh interrogation. Also, harsher methods’ unique moral harms combined with the unlikelihood that it will yield true information is why its use is not justified. b) Pro attacked this by saying, “Con admits that harsh interrogation works. It’s a matter of risks and probabilities.” To clarify, this point shows that the reliability of information obtained is further weakened through terrorist organization and structure. Overall, the ineffectiveness of torture makes the probabilities of the desired results too low to justify the risks. c) My opponent’s whole argument against this is that we need to focus on what to do when friendly interrogation fails. First, under this point I uphold that once torture is not an option it causes an increase in research in new, non-violent interrogation methods, increasing efficiency. I then also illustrated how interrogators are bad at detecting lies. My opponent claims this is simply part of the fact that these methods work, “99.8% of the time” – the point to be seen here, is that there is a high likelihood that, given how the interrogation training doesn’t accurately equip interrogators, its use will not obtain accurate information. With effectiveness, what needs to be seen is that torture is a gamble on saving lives – given all the factors that contribute to the information being flawed, this a gamble we’re likely to lose. Water boarding is non-lethal My opponent addressed my human dignity argument by bringing up how we imprison criminals and harm their human dignity due to their past actions - correlating torturing a terrorist to how we punish criminals. This actually expands on my argument that justifying with past actions shapes torture as a punishment, not a means to obtain information. Again, in this instance, the goal of torture becomes not to save lives, but to punish one for wrong acts. I then provided two attacks against why we must consider the effects of the harshest interrogation techniques, including water boarding. My opponent simply countered these by claiming the harms are less significant since they have a “low frequency of use”. This doesn’t justly attack my claim that if we are looking at the use of all torture methods in a ticking time bomb situation, we must consider the harshest consequences. On the fire fighter metaphor, my opponent addresses 1 of my 3 critiques, by talking about fireman acting in the moment. The consideration of sacrifices that some people make beforehand about the possible risks deals with only their primary goal – a fire fighter is supposed to react immediately to a burning building. The CIA agents interrogating terrorists have many other primary goals that they consider – travel, friendly interrogation, etc. This psychological harm is not a necessary risk or one my opponent showed is considered before. Moving on to my own case: a) My opponent again hammers on the Milgram Experiment, which was used to explain the mindset of a torturer and illustrate how people will follow orders to torture another human and then they are hurt in the long-term. However, my opponent then claims, “Con provides no evidence that the practice of water boarding with CIA safeguards harms the interrogator.” This is not true; I referenced my use of my source 2 under this point—that interviews of interrogators showed they suffered the same symptoms as their victims. Again, Pro did not attack this source after I reaffirmed it. Now, these torturers were not all necessarily conducting the CIA safeguarded water boarding treatment; however, in all of these cases interrogators were harming the human dignity of their victims. The point of torture is to demoralize the victim until they feel trapped and feel the need to make it stop by whatever means (hence giving false information); this act has psychological consequences. b) I would like to start by expanding on the harms excerpt Pro selected from [9], “Victims of abusive interrogation suffer with anxiety and depressive disorders, manifest brief psychotic disorders, including delusions and hallucinations, develop obsessive-compulsive disorder, and are moved to the brink of suicide. Many are demoralized and hopeless.” Next, Xenakis directly acknowledges the CIA water boarding methods, he finds, “the guidelines published by the Office of Medical Services (OMS) of the US Central Intelligence Agency recognized the inherent dangers of water boarding and other stress-inducing tactics.” Then, he summarizes, “There is no question about it – water boarding inflicts serious physical harm – and it inflicts serious psychological damage. It has no place in the armamentarium of effective interrogation.” Finally, my opponent claims this article is, “more like a blog post”.Not only does Xenakis identify himself as, “a retired US brigadier general and army psychiatrist”, but this article opens with, “Parts of this article are adapted from Condemning Torture & Abuse: A Call to Action, by S.N. Xenakis, Psychiatric Times. In Press.” Given all of this, there are clear psychological harms to water boarding and other forms of torture, as Xenakis reliably shows. Rendition My opponent claims, “Harsh interrogation is designed to minimize the need for rendition”; yet, he fails to actually uphold how this is achieved. He referenced the Bush administration’s push for harsher interrogation, but after this was countered with the al-Libi examplec, he simply states, “Bush continued rendition while attempting to minimize the necessity.” Ultimately, he has failed to prove how using interrogation will actually decrease rendition. Slippery Slope Pro claims that terrorists are not covered by international law, such as that put forth by the UN; however, the UN document [12] is titled, “Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. The UN does not seek to prevent torture only of those who sign international treaties or agreements; rather, the goal is that “all persons” are protected from torture. Again, this is the status quo, not a result that would come if we negate the resolution. In conclusion, there is no justification to use torture – it is likely to fail and holds serious moral consequences. If we are in a ticking time bomb situation, we ought to spend our time using more reliable options. Sources Last round I rebuilt all of my sources and my opponent failed to attack them. Given that I rebuilt the Zubayada sources my opponent had misrepresented in his attacks, I win this evidence clash thus nullifying one of his examples.