• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does defense justify torture?

Does defense justify torture?

  • Total voters
    49
Viktyr Korimir said:
There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Not so much... There s a difference between "a matter of policy" and "If the situation warrants".
The United States does not, asa matter of policy, use nuclear weapons on cities - but will if the situation warrants.
 
Goobieman said:
a country can condemn torture as a matter of policy and still use it when the situation dictates.
Click to expand...

Viktyr Korimir said:
There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

How about this?

German guy said:
As I said, if I was in the position to decide to employ torture, and I personally am convinced this would help saving the lives of thousands of people, I'd probably do it too. But I still don't believe torture should ever become official policy, or be legal.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
The fallacy in your question is thinking that it's a slippery slope argument to begin with. It isn't
Click to expand...
Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.
Click to expand...
You:
-Letting a government torture opens the door for it to torture anyone....
-If the government is allowed to torture anyone, then it can torture anyone.
Click to expand...
Thus, it is demonstrated.

So, I ask agaIn:
Dont you, as a rule, oppose the slippery slope argument?
Or is that just when it is convenient?
 
Goobieman said:
Not so much... There s a difference between "a matter of policy" and "If the situation warrants".
The United States does not, asa matter of policy, use nuclear weapons on cities - but will if the situation warrants.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Click to expand...

Current U.S. policy on the use of nuclear weapons:

U.S. "Negative Security Assurances" At a Glance | Arms Control Association

The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State
Click to expand...

.... there's very little ambiguity in when and where we'll use nuclear weapons.
 
Goobieman said:
Not sure what your point is or at whom it is directed...?
Click to expand...

Is German Guy's statement equally hypocritical? I cleaned up the post to be more clear.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
False dichotomy.
A country need not "embrace" torture in order to use it when the situation dictates; a country can condemn torture as a matter of policy and still use it when the situation dictates.
Your absolute statements are writing checks that your argument can't cash.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but you are wrong. You are either a nation who condones torture or condemns it.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....but you are wrong. You are either a nation who condones torture or condemns it.
Click to expand...
Apparently you dont understand what "False dichotomy" means.
 
Goobieman said:
Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope

You:

Thus, it is demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Aren't you a lawyer? If the possible events in question can be demonstrated to be factual, like for example the government trying to give itself the power to torture American citizens after it's allowed the torture of foreign citizens, then it's not a slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Thank you for confirming what I said.
Click to expand...

It was a sarcastic statement. The U.S. has already outline in its nuclear policy when and where it would use nuclear weapons.
 
Hatuey said:
If the possible events in question can be demonstrated to be factual,
Click to expand...

Seriously? I'm tired too, but that's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Aren't you a lawyer? If the possible events in question can be demonstrated to be factual, like for example the government trying to give itself the power to torture American citizens, then it's not a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
If the possible events were factual, then you'd not be using if... then. You're arguing a slippery slope.
So, I ask agaIn:
Dont you, as a rule, oppose the slippery slope argument?
Or is that just when it is convenient?
 
Hatuey said:
It was a sarcastic statement. The U.S. has already outline in its nuclear policy when and where it would use nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Yes... and this confirms exactly what I said. I thank you again.
 
ecofarm said:
Is German Guy's statement equally hypocritical? I cleaned up the post to be more clear.
Click to expand...
You'll have to ask the guy that used the term first.
 
ecofarm said:
Seriously? I'm tired too, but that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why would it be?

Fallacies in Argumentation

If there was some reasoning that tells us how flat-earth-solid-sky teaching follows from teaching creationism or how loss of all freedom of speech follows from restricting porn, these examples would not commit the slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
I'm glad you arrived and I don't want the job back, but before you arrived...
Click to expand...

Oh this makes it worse. With two people throwing out the rational facts of events and occurrences, how worse is the extremism of these critics in their zealousy, exaggerations, and grandstanding. I just don't get it. We are at war with an element of a region that wants us to be nothing more than their religious enemy and we still have to contend with the average America who would rather kick American in the balls than to be fair in their criticisms. Who's the enemy?
 
ecofarm said:
Seriously? I'm tired too, but that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why would it be?

Fallacies in Argumentation

If there was some reasoning that tells us how flat-earth-solid-sky teaching follows from teaching creationism or how loss of all freedom of speech follows from restricting porn, these examples would not commit the slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

If the government can say that a foreigner who has valuable information can be tortured if it feels it will 'save lives' it stands to reason that it would do the same to its own citizens under the same pretense.
 
Last edited:
If the possible events in question can be demonstrated to be factual,
Click to expand...

1. Then the events are not longer "possible", they are "fact".
or
2. Possible events that happened some other time are more likely.

Both possible meanings are nonsense.


Anyway, of course the person with the code to the bomb gets tortured and citizenship doesn't matter. Caring about citizenship in this scenario is also nonsense.


I'm declaring shenanigans.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
The problem with letting the government torture is that well, you're letting the government torture. For all the bitching I hear about the government being incompetent when dealing with welfare, healthcare, guns, crime, drugs etc. I can't help but wonder why somebody would allow a body they feel is incompetent deal with something like torture. People don't think the federal government should handle marriage but they are willing to entrust it with torture?
Click to expand...

And for all your support of welfare , healthcare and other giveaways, it's a wonder you don't trust the govt with torture.
 
I would say that in this case that is a poor excuse because i highly doubt torturing detainees has saved any American lives nor have i seen any evidence of this. not to mention that i do not believe terrorism to be that big of a threat since the media has totally blown it out of proportion , and when you talk to returning soldiers this is evident.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Extreme situations can require extreme measures which would not be considered in more normal circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom