THW allow the use of torture on criminals

I will start with rebuilding the rebuilt point my opposition refuted previously refuted. 1)I made a point about torturing a terrorist would get the intelligence to save other people Then Con chooses to refute my argument by giving an example of a "Sadistic Choice scenario" In which pointed out that killing one person to save another person is wrong. Con then made a connection claiming the situation of torturing one terrorist to save thousands of people is just like the "Sadistic Choice scenario" Yes, I agree that killing one person to save another person is completely wrong, But the problem is that there is zero connection between the "terrorist" scenario and the "Sadistic choice" scenario, Reason is because as I mentioned so many time, We are torturing, Not killing, Torturing is not taking any life, Killing is. Torturing is delivering physical pain to the victim Killing is an act of causing death. In addition, We are not torturing that one terrorist to save one person"s life, We are torturing that one known terrorist that has been known to be participating in terrorism in order to save the number of people and the collateral damage that is going to be caused. To summarize this rebuilding, Torturing a known terrorist to save thousands of peoples X00; Killing one person to save one person I"m sure the latter is less sadistic than the former, Right? Next part Con"s refutation to my argument is claiming that I were being dishonest in my presentation because I gave an argument of using torture on criminals when useful in a debate of motion "This house as the United States would allow the use of torture on criminals" that torture wherein many characters are under the impression that torture always works. I gave the motion "THW would allow the use of torture on criminals" but I never said the house would use torture in every scenario possible if the criminals aren"t willing to give up intel. This debate would be completely different if the motion were "THW would use torture on criminals" but it"s not. """Con"s refutation rasped #1argument stands 2) I brought up the fact that # of terrorist would be decreased if a bill of allowing torture passed. Con chooses to refute by asking 4 rhetorical questions, I"ll list them all again: Do the people on death row fear the death penalty? Do the prisoners fear prison? Or any supposed afterlife? Not to commit again? Con then stated his rhetorical question does not need to be explained as he believes in his audience"s intelligence to understand. Ok, Con can choose to believe that if he wants. But even if it was a fact that people on death row fear the death penalty, Prisoners fear prison Con still didn"t explain how that is related to weakening/damaging or refuting my arguments. But Con did make some refutation to my #2 argument in the previous round. Con brought it up by asking the question "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? " Yes, They will. The idea of life dying in your own suicide bombing incident or getting shot in the head which is all happening in an instant, Therefore, Your pain ends really quickly is less extreme than the idea of intense pain lasting for very long. Think of this, The idea of (waterboarding) being drown in water for a week is much stronger than just getting shot right into the head and die. """Con"s refutation for argument #2 rasped and the argument still stands 3) I added an extension to my argument 1 "There is no escaping the fact that whenever we drop bombs, We drop them with the knowledge that some number of children will be blinded, Disembowelled, Paralyzed, Orphaned, And killed by them. So we can now ask if we are willing to act in a way that guarantees the misery and death of some considerable number of innocent children, Why spare the rod with known terrorists? What is the difference between pursuing a course of action where we run the risk of inadvertently subjecting some innocent men to torture, And pursuing one in which we will inadvertently kill far greater numbers of innocent men, Women, And children? Rather, It seems obvious that the misapplication of torture should be far less troubling to us than collateral damage. After all, Torture need not even impose a significant risk of death or permanent injury on its victims; while the collaterally damaged are, Almost by definition, Crippled or killed. " Con asked me if I were suggesting dropping a bomb to kill citizen is good, I think Con thought I was talking about the government dropping the bomb, But no, I were talking about a bomb that terrorist gonna drop which could be defused if we torture the spare terrorist in a 1st person perspective. Sorry for the confusing extension, I would like to see Con refute it again this round. I would like to do my counter refutation now In round 2 Con gave an argument about how it is a common notion that people allow torture. I then refuted by giving an example The survey by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 2016 found that 46% of Americans consider torture a useful tactic, While 30% see it as wrong. So the next round after that Con gave a random example of torture but um" that doesn"t weaken my example of Red cross-survey nor it is rebuilding your original argument in any shape or form. 1) I made a claim "Con didn't explain why it is considered immoral to torture people. " in his argument of claiming torture is immoral. Then Con responded to that by asking "Do I really need to explain to people why torture is bad? " " Yes you do, Because there is sea flow of argument for why torture is bad and why torture is not bad and I and the audience don"t know which one you are talking about. Put that aside Con forgot to rebuild his argument. """ Con"s point rasped, Therefore, It does not stand Con gave an extension so I will refute it Con pointed out there is another interrogation method other than physical torture. But Con didn"t say why it means that house shouldn"t allow torture. """No refutation needed because Con made a statement that contributes 0 meaning to the motion. This is my final speech, So here goes my short whip Let"s ask yourself a question What is the role of the government of the United States and does this resolution fit this role? 1)To ensure safety for our citizen The resolution of allowing torture would gain the government tremendous advantage they have because of the intel they are going to be getting from the terrorist captured. Even just a bit of intel on the location of the next bomb, Location of hostage, Terrorist camp, Or even just the name of the crew could get the government one step ahead of the terrorist to ensure the safety of our citizens. 2)Reduce the terrorism rate The resolution of allows torture means announcing bill of torture allowed to the public would get terrorist frightened and ultimately the idea of torture is going to get them to give up their insanity. Making the rate of terrorism drops 3) Act morally This is the most important one, And it is very commonly debated topic of whether the act of torture is moral. Cons of this topic will say an act of torture is violating the human right for the terrorist. But the question is, Why should we give an f**k to some person that has been known to be murdering lots of people and probably planted lots of bombs and probably did some of their own torturing for "fun", And also not giving the house the information needed to hunt down every other terrorist. By choosing not to give the house the intel needed it already shows that the person is still siding with his s*itty little criminal organization and also showing 0 regrets and guilt from the decision to join terrorist, We don"t need that kind of person to the society, We told them beforehand that if they gonna give out the intel we would protect them and serve them well in the jail just like other prisoners we have, But they choose to not. I would say that it is immoral for the government to even show a little sympathy for a goddamn terrorist. . I should"ve had name the motion "THW allow the use of torture on the terrorist" but I didn"t