Ladies and gentlemen, I am a bit confused by my opponent’s previous statement. It seems as though we are in agreement much more than disagreement.
Take for example the following statements:
There must be a reason for this agreement wouldn’t you say?
My opponent fails to mention or seem to look at my sentences that follow the agreement, anyone would say torture is a Bad thing and its lowering our
self’s to their standards.
My task in this debate is to show how it’s a necessity and sometimes it is required of us to do something we as people do not like.
On his response to
can we trust terrorists and criminals, I said no, not 100%
my opponent has taken this and shown that I have made it out like they can’t be trusted at all for the information they provide.
I would like to show this in a quote from my previous post
The simple answer to this is no,
the intelligence extracted from terrorists cant be 100% accurate as the chances are they are some low ranking person. But at the end of the day
whatever information they provides takes us one step closer or higher in the chain.
If I left that question with just my simple no, then my opponent would have been correct.
Now to the rest of my opponents’ reply.
He mentions batman and the fact that I used
Sometimes one must become what he detests and hates to do what is right
Funny enough I wasn’t thinking of Batman when I typed that up
but if I were I would have used the actual quote from the movie
Batman: He didn't, I killed those people. Gotham needs their white knight. Sometimes people deserve more than truth, sometimes they deserve
to have their faith rewarded.
Lt. Gordon: We'll have to hunt you.
Batman: You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me, you'll set the dogs on me. But that's what has to happen.
Gordon's Son: Batman! Batman! Why is he running? He didn't do anything wrong.
Lt. Gordon: Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. He's not a hero,
he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight.
My sentence that I typed reflects also reflects on the first part of my opponents reply where I agreed with him on the fact that we would be lowering
our self’s to their level.
My opponent has gone into the delusion that i agree with him that bigger fish cannot be caught
using smaller fish.
and that (what he seems to make it out to be) all terrorists structures work in a way that they only hire or get people lower down to do their dirty
work. Or they only work alone.
One would presume when someone is given a task or job to do they don’t just instantly get the job plan in their heads without having someone give it
to them in some form or the other from someone one step higher than them in the chain?
I didn’t know saying something isn’t 100% makes it 100% that I agree with my opponent
So how could we ever be sure that torturing another human being could ever lead to the prevention of further attacks, thus saving innocent
As I said in my previous reply which my opponent seems to have alluded,
by getting intelligence on attacks or any small information on pending attacks gives the people that are a target a higher chance of being warned and
taken to safety.
every second or minute that is gained is pottential life saved.
My opponent has gone into assuming that I believe that a lower ranking terrorist would know the in-depth working of his command and give 100% true
In my previous reply I have said it’s not 100% accurate and the only way to get through the ranks of an organisation is to go up the chain.
My opponent has yet again come up with the following
Who is to say that the terrorist is not just a simpleton who was recruited by these terrorists with no information of what he was really
doing, or who he was really working for?
That simpleton who doesn’t know what he is doing will have been recruited by someone, In the first place.
Now if this person was a simpleton and didn’t know what he was doing then where would torture come into it? They would freely give information since
as you said they are simpletons with no idea of their actions. They can help find the person who recruited them and work from there.
in most scenarios they cant hire simpleton (as my oppenent put it) as they require days or even months of planing to get their job done.
to do that would require a command structure and a small/alot of knowlidge of their group for good comunications between them)
Taking this into consideration, I fail to see how my opponent could honestly believe that torturing anyone could ever lead to reliable
I would like to direct everyone to my previous posts and responses in this reply on why I believe it would save lives in the end.
I realize this is an attempt to bait me into saying that saving innocent lives is not worth it, but that will not work.
Believe what you want, this is a valid question and if my opponent wants to dance around the questions with the veil of baiting then it’s his
The question was
1. the debate title is Torture to save lives.
if torture can (and did) save lives and is used against those that are proven to be a threat then wouldn't it be justified.
For the Means to justify the results.
My opponent has replied with this as well which stands out
I would suggest to you that we already have all the means necessary to prevent and retaliate against any attack we could face. The United States and
the countries that stand beside it constitute the greatest force the world has ever known.
I would happily agree with this if this topic was about defending against countries as a whole but
terrorists work in groups and sometimes on their own with no home country of base.
They operate freely on a global scale where travelling from one country to another is a stone’s throw away.
So no matter how many state of the art sonar’s and radars other gadgets you put in place it won’t detect them so easily
as we in Europe, the
US and other western countries advance in technology terrorists also advance in methods and ways to elude the system.
The topic is about If
torture could save lives
I am merely showing everyone that in some ways it can save lives. And that sometimes its required of people to do what is required of them, (don’t
bring in Batman
again) as that sentence reflects on the real world aswell.
I would like to ask the following question
1. How would you get information from a terrorist,
Without any form of physical,mental abuse or drugs?