The United States should allow the limited use of torture.

Let me begin by thanking my opponent for his time and thorough argument. Hopefully, we can manage to reach some sort of consensus by the end of the debate, but perhaps that would be hoping for too much. At any rate, my opponent will probably be unsurprised to learn that I haven't found his arguments persuasive. In fact, even if the central claims of all three of my opponent's arguments were valid, it is unclear how they would present any substantial basis to negate the resolution. Having said that, let's now examine the arguments as they are currently presented. A1: Torture Violates International and Domestic Law Given the nature of my argument, it is simply of no importance whether or not my proposal is in accordance with international law or constitution law. Sometimes the constitution must be temporarily suspended for the greater good. This is why the President has the authority to initiate martial law. [1] Indeed, it is trivially easy to envision numerous scenarios where someone would have to break the law in order to act ethically. Imagine, for example, that you had to temporarily steal a car in order to save the life of a small child. In this situation, would it be ethical to let the child die and not steal the car? Of course, the answer is no. The basis of moral philosophy is not to be found in the dogmatic adherence of any document regardless of circumstances, it is to be found in a careful analysis of the causes and conditions of human and animal suffering. A2: Torture Creates Blowback Risk My opponent argues that torture has very serious and negative effects, both militarily and diplomatically. It is unclear how this is significant to all instances of torture (e.g., the kidnapping case in Germany), so I'll let him connect the dots on that one. In any case, he concludes that torture shouldn't be allowed given its propensity to produce undesirable consequences. Although I would tend to agree with him about the negative effects the atrocities of Abu Ghraib have had on our war efforts, I cannot bring myself to see the relevance of these conclusions to the topic at hand. In this context, I am inclined to ask my opponent one question: How are the tragedies at Abu Ghraib similar to either case that I brought up regarding torture in Algiers or Germany? The events at Abu Ghraib were nothing more than casual sadism; they did not represent a strategic or intelligent attempt to extract information. [2] Similarly, abuses at Guantanamo Bay were so common that they hardly would qualify as one of the emergency cases for torture that I have expounded upon. [3] It should be obvious that I'm not advocating for unmitigated sadism, nor am I advising that we use torture regularly. Therefore, to compare the unregulated and often pointless war crimes that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay to my argument for judicious torture is a false comparison. A3: In Fourth Generation Warfare, the Moral Battle is Crucial Among other things, my opponent seems to imply that it is necessary for any nation to maintain its moral credibility as it engages in matters concerning war. On this point, we could not possibly agree more. Nevertheless, I do not recognize my proposal as being morally wrong in any way. Moreover, my opponent hasn't explicitly challenged this view in his argument in this section. He merely cited the opinion of a military officer who gave his view on a rather general policy for military engagement. And although Lind's opinions are sensible, they do not demonstrate the conclusion my antagonist is reaching towards. C1: Torture can be a feasible means of gathering information. It would seem as though this issue about the effectiveness of torture must be confronted seriously before the debate can truly progress. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that the only thing I have sought to demonstrate in this section is that torture can help produce good intelligence; as such, ethical questions can be dealt with later. The real question before us can be adequately framed like this: Given the optimal effectiveness and risks of torture (whatever they may actually be), does that effectiveness reasonably justify its use in certain situations. With this question in mind, the answer seems very likely to be yes. For obvious reasons, we cannot conduct experiments to gauge the effectiveness and reliability of torture as a means of gathering information, but we can look back through history and draw reasonable conclusions from the historic record of both Algiers and Germany. Clearly, the army is wise not to consistently use risky tactics like torture that may be only effective some of the time. However, this ratio of success still makes torture acceptable in certain scenarios (e.g., the kidnapping case in Germany). As my opponent suggests, torture can occasionally be unreliable, and there are often situations where non-torture methods are better at acquiring information. This much is both true and uninteresting. It's simply incorrect to make a universal rule from an inconclusive and incomplete set of data. C2: Torture can be ethically justified in certain circumstances. For starters, the basis of my argument doesn't depend solely upon the possibility of nuclear terrorism. However, the notion that the possibility of nuclear terrorism is nonexistent is truly detached from empirical reality with regard to the facts about current trends in worldwide nuclear proliferation. And all the real experts on nuclear proliferation agree on this point, such as Harvard's Belfer Center. This unfortunate state of affairs has been made possible by a variety of factors. For example, materials used for nuclear weapons have occasionally gone missing in the past. [4] The United States has made good strides in safeguarding the general populous from nuclear weapons, but to prematurely declare that the U.S. is safe from the reckless use of nuclear weapons is unjustifiable. Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that my opponent is correct in claiming that my proposal leads to a dangerous slippery slope that will authorize the rape and disfigurement of women and children. I've already shown this view to be without merit when I referenced the expert opinions of Alan Dershowitz. Additionally, neither the case regarding torture in Germany nor Algiers devolved into outbreaks of rampant sadism. As such, my opponent's views on this matter can rightfully be put aside, because the slippery slope he envisions is nothing more than a mirage. C3: Incurring collateral damage is far worse morally than the torture of certain people. Interestingly, my opponent seemingly agrees with the central ethical claim of my argument in this section. However, he still maintains that torture isn't a feasible means of gathering information. So, for now, the weight of this argument should be viewed in conjunction with the weight of my first two arguments. ::Conclusion:: In summary, my opponent's first argument is unpersuasive at best and irrelevant at worst. Even if my proposal were illegal, this hardly provides for a strong reason to refuse to engage in torture by itself. His second argument doesn't fare much better, since it unfairly compares instances of torture that are entirely dissimilar. And lastly, he hasn't managed to clearly show how my proposal is ethically wrong in any way. On top of this, my three arguments remain quite intact. In at least some situations, torture has been a reasonable way to get accurate information. Moreover, there is no reason to conclude that judicious torture with strict oversight leads down the slippery slope my antagonist has alluded to. For these reasons, it is still a good idea for the United States to allow the limited use of torture. Sources: http://www.debate.org...