Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Resolved: Torture is sometimes morally permissible. Concessions My opponent has conceded 1a, 1c, 1d, and "Collateral Damage". This alone is enough to default the vote to Con. ======= Case Pro ======= I said in response to the syllogism that it "does not include anything that has not been already said". The Daughter Scenario "He would let his own daughter be dismembered and killed in order to remain consistent. " It is not that simple. Torture is not guaranteed to work; in fact, it has a rather small chance of working. I could instead set up a brain fingerprinting process to acquire the necessary information. But to cut to the core of the issue, my opponent is not the only one who can paint his opponent in a bad light. My opponent would have me torture and harm another human being, possibly for naught. I am equally disgusted. ======= Case Con ======= Contention 1: Torture is unreliable. 1b. Torture is torture, no matter when it is used. It consists of inflicting pain on a subject. To try to escape the pain, the subject reveals the truth. At least, that is the idea. It does not matter how advanced the technology is: the same basic method is used, and all that matters is how much pain is inflicted. Advances in torture techniques have been towards reduced long-term effects and reduced noticeability, but even those have been unsuccessful, as I explained in round 2. Waterboarding, the most modern form of torture, has failed many times (. http://thinkprogress.org...). "My opponent contended that Vietnamese torture represents its most skilled application. " I did no such thing. See previous paragraph. My opponent has repeated a paragraph that I have already effectively refuted. He continues to rely on the war analogy, but I have shown why it is not an applicable comparison. There is no point in going over it again. ========== Contention 2: There are better alternatives. I would like to point out that my opponent has requested the audience to watch a video, which is an abuse of the character limit. My opponent claims that since brain fingerprinting in his video was only used after a crime was committed, therefore it can ONLY be used after a crime is committed. The fallacy here is blatant. Brain fingerprinting can be used as humane counterterrorism (. http://www.brainwavescience.com...), but this is not my main point. As I said in round 1, we should invest resources into searching for alternative methods to torture. The existence of one is evidence for the existence of more. ========== Contention 3: Torture is harmful. Minor physical suffering can be measured. But I hold my position that extreme interpersonal suffering, with both physical and psychological aspects, cannot be measured in the way indicated by my opponent. " 'What if the person isn't really a terrorist? ' What if one of the terrorist training camps we bomb turns out to really be a school? Q. E. D. " My opponent says "QED" as though this is a rigorous proof. It's not; it is an argument by analogy. I have shown the analogy to be flawed. Subsequently, my case never advocated for the bombing of buildings that we know nothing about, and my opponent assumes that it is morally correct to randomly bomb buildings without even knowing what they are. This position is untenable. "You contend that torturing an innocent for the greater good is wrong. You also contend that accidentally bombing a school is unfortunate but morally permissible. " My opponent has not properly created a connection between these two events. Even so, though, I do not advocate for bombing schools, and I do not see how it could happen by accident as long as the military is being relatively cautious. As I have demonstrated time and time again, my aversion to torture is not emotional. It is logical. Torture is not only unnecessary and unsuccessful, but it violates human rights. "Once again my opponent is coaxing you to follow your emotions rather than your logic. Criminals don't have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " I will ignore the fact that my case is based on reason and not emotion. I will also ignore the fact that my opponent's second statement is unsupported. My opponent previously conceded that innocents are sometimes tortured (implicitly, through his war analogy, and explicitly in 1c of round 2). He also concedes that innocents have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, torture is not justified if there is even the slightest chance of the subject being innocent. And, of course, there always is. There is no scenario of absolute certainty; human rights are infinitely valuable. It directly follows that torture is never morally permissible. Resolution negated. Vote for human rights. Vote for justice.