Torture can be morally justified

Thank you Freeman for this debate. Thank you voters for reading until the end. First I'll start by clarifying my position, torture isn't morally justified. Pro's position: Torture is morally justified. The burden of proof rests on Pro because he must argue that the benefits outweigh the negative, yet he fails to do so. I will start attacking his rebuttals and going to voting issues. Note: In debate silent is consent, thus dropping means my opponent agrees with this point because he didn't respond and cannot bring it back up. Rebuttal: 1. Evidence: Washington Post. My logical reasoning/evidence is TWA Flight 847, the gunmen started off beating Robert Stethem with fists, then beating him with an armrest, and later shot him and they tortured another serviceman. Doesn't this get more violent and bloody? This historical example supports my argument. Once you do something that feels good you want to keep doing it, it's only logical. Bloodthirsty isn't justified; it's cruel and immoral to feed on one's pain. 2. "Torture itself cannot guarantee anyone's guilt or innocence" Because torture cannot guarantee innocence or guilt it isn't reliable, thus if torturing an innocent is morally justified then why not kill someone publicly on the street? Freeman indirectly agreed with this as quoted above. 3. I meant the technique of torture preferably focuses on a group, race, or sex. His refutal is pointless. Read my whole contention 3. 4. He dropped this dispute and tries picking it up. He agreed with my definitions and I did not define it as narrow practice for 3 reasons: 1. Freeman didn't define it or specify which technique of torture; 2. There's more ground for both Pro and Con to debate on; 3. Freeman cannot say: Oh waterboarding is too broad, punching is too general, ooh killing seems is narrow enough, it's illogical to do so. Anyway we agreed torture by definition is general. This argument stands. 5. Constitutionality was founded on morals we believed in. By violating constitutionality through amendments in forms of torture, torture isn't morally justified because it has violated our important morals. John Locke, a philosopher whose ideals shaped the constitution, stressed the link of legal and moral issues. 6. Dropped and cannot be brought back. I have the choice of not refuting this. Web evidence contradicts his position. His part 2: refer to contention 5 sub c about social contract. 7. Typo, this was meant to be in refutal. Ideal: we aren't the best interrogators, if better foreign torturers fail then we will also fail due to lack of field experience in the U.S. 8. No response. 9. Freeman's choices provided no grounds for Con or any explanation how his choices will or will not achieve justification. My answer created a ground for Con, thus it's fair. "because in all reasonableness there were ONLY 3 OPTIONS and I HAD already ELIMINATED ONE OF THEM." This proves he was unfair by eliminating one option that Con could have chose. He wouldn't support his 1st situation: "Nor am I arguing that a general practice of torture can be made from the scenario I outlined above." This argument again isn't considered. 10. LOOK, torture doesn't provide equality for all, it discriminates minorities such as religions, race, sex, and culture. Refer R1 contention 3. Ditching: "I am NOT arguing…made legal…against the law…NOR am I ARGUING that a general practice CAN BE MADE FROM the scenario I outlined above." I countered that by proving legal and laws are based on morality and he states he will not use his 1st example to attack, defend, or make a point, thus wherever they are cited are rendered useless. He has failed to hold his burden of proof. The infinity example is water down part of the social contract and harm principle by Rousseau. When one man has done wrong, he has done wrong to the whole society. When someone tortures an innocent man, the interrogator has done wrong to society. Refer to contention 2 and if under stress the interrogator will make fatal mistakes, such as finding the accused innocent or the information useless, he has done wrong to society because many died by not finding important information and is violating the law and innocent's rights; and because laws and morals have a link, torture isn't morally justified. For example when an artist becomes famous the housing market of his hometown booms, when he's dead his hometown's housing value slowly drops. Similarly his fame is his value and his hometown's housing market is society's value, they remain the same, yet when he dies his work value may slowly decrease so does the housing market of his hometown. If it's confusing I'm sorry. My opponent disagrees with him, so Freeman believes mankind holds no value and doesn't see the link between laws and morals. His challenge: 1st example as stated above he will not support or use his argument. 2nd example is very hypothetical. I will explain again why it's hypothetical: In general there are alternatives not just 2 choices; if the door is 100% impregnable then the keypad cannot open it because it's 100% impenetrable thus my daughter dies even if I torture the madman (major loopholes). Now the choices: 1st choice- waiting and letting my daughter die: If I fail my daughter will die, cannot be morally justified because I didn't achieve the goal of saving a life, my daughter. 2nd choice: Again the door is 100% impenetrable, thus the key pad won't work; example/choice doesn't guarantee I will get the right code because the man is unreasonable and stubborn, refer/supports contention 2 sub 3, and "Or you could torture the man and try to get the security could that COULD save your daughter" doesn't guarantee I will save a life (what good is a security could?); it isn't justified because I am not able to save my daughter. In both explanations I showed that it isn't justified because I couldn't save a life, my daughter, in both choices, thus there is no legitimate reason to wait or torture the guy but only to seek an alternative such as the one I provided. I hope this clarifies why it's hypothetical and why I chose an alternative. So reasoned above, torture isn't morally justified. Voting issues: Freeman has dropped some points and thus agreed that torture isn't morally justified: contention 2 sub 3 (arbitrary answers to relive pain), contentions 4 (enemies) & 6 (long term effects). I have shown several times that Freeman has failed to defend his position and his arguments are contradictory such as his web evidence. He has tried to provide no ground for Con and attempts to debate unfairly as I have pointed out several times. He has dropped my example: "The terrorists have captured a U.S defense official and demanded whereabouts of important military files. My opponent position claims it's justify for terrorists to torture the official to find flaws in our defense. Justified?" I have upheld my burden to prove torture is immoral and unjustified in all general situations that he put out and in extreme situations. Refer to R1 case. Pro doesn't have contentions how/why torture is justified in any general extreme scenario, but merely gave unfair choices with no explanations. He has failed to prove his burden. Philosophers stress the importance of the link between laws and rights. Pro fails to see this. For reasons above I have proven torture isn't morally justified in any extreme circumstances, so vote Con. Thank you.