The Repub Debate

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

You guys advocating torture are playing fast and loose with the lives of possibly innocent people. It's pretty easy to sit in your comfy chair and confidently propose the torture and murder of people you don't know and will never see, but it's a foolish idea and it hasn't yielded tangible proof that the results are accurate or have merit.

 

Further, you're ignoring the collateral damage this does to America's image, and the revenge factor of the survivors of these victims. How many people are we willing to turn into future terrorists in revenge for American torture to extract some dubious information today?

Of course it is...it is also pretty easy to sit in your comfy chair and tell people how it is a bad idea and that it doesn't work...For all we know it has worked many many times and stopped things from happening that we either never heard about or never even knew were going to happen.

 

We do? Are you just going off of gut feeing here?

 

My brothers best friend was a marine...he had to do "bad things" during his 3 tours (mostly the last one) to get info...unless he was lying to me.

 

 

 

If I tortured someone it would make me feel better to think it did some good.

 

 

 

 

 

You guys advocating torture are playing fast and loose with the lives of possibly innocent people. It's pretty easy to sit in your comfy chair and confidently propose the torture and murder of people you don't know and will never see, but it's a foolish idea and it hasn't yielded tangible proof that the results are accurate or have merit.

 

Further, you're ignoring the collateral damage this does to America's image, and the revenge factor of the survivors of these victims. How many people are we willing to turn into future terrorists in revenge for American torture to extract some dubious information today?

Of course it is...it is also pretty easy to sit in your comfy chair and tell people how it is a bad idea and that it doesn't work...For all we know it has worked many many times and stopped things from happening that we either never heard about or never even knew were going to happen.

 

Since the bold is the basis of your argument, you'll understand why it's laughably transparent and childish.

 

Okay...

 

 

Let me rephrase what knapp said. If you're going to torture someone, you should know ahead of time that torture actually works. "For all we know it works" is not a good enough reason to support something.

 

I agree...100%...I was wrong.

[knapplc]

Say you're a Marine in country. Your buddy got hit by a shooter. You need to track down this shooter before he gets someone else. You have information that a local knows where the shooter is. You go to the local's house, you interrogate him. The local doesn't want to tell you anything, so you "enhance" your interrogation technique. There is ah imminent threat to your unit and you need this info, so it's justified, right?

 

After a bit of "encouragement," your local gives up the location of the shooter. You go to the area, do some recon, see a dude with an AK, and as he glances in your direction he sees you and starts running. You call to stop (in his language), and he keeps going. You pop a couple of rounds in the dirt near him so he knows you're serious, he turns around with the AK at waist level, pointing in your direction. Next shot takes him out.

 

Successful use of interrogation techniques? Yes or no?

[teachercd]

Say you're a Marine in country. Your buddy got hit by a shooter. You need to track down this shooter before he gets someone else. You have information that a local knows where the shooter is. You go to the local's house, you interrogate him. The local doesn't want to tell you anything, so you "enhance" your interrogation technique. There is ah imminent threat to your unit and you need this info, so it's justified, right?

 

After a bit of "encouragement," your local gives up the location of the shooter. You go to the area, do some recon, see a dude with an AK, and as he glances in your direction he sees you and starts running. You call to stop (in his language), and he keeps going. You pop a couple of rounds in the dirt near him so he knows you're serious, he turns around with the AK at waist level, pointing in your direction. Next shot takes him out.

 

Successful use of interrogation techniques? Yes or no?

First of all...that dirt has rights...plus what if there had been some bugs in that dirt...now those bugs are dead for no reason...the bugs family has been killed for some warning shots? No...I am not for that. That dirt and those bugs were innocent.

[BigRedBuster]

That's too bad....I was really looking forward to your answer.

[teachercd]

That's too bad....I was really looking forward to your answer.

I know...you would have to torture it out of me.

 

See what I did there?

[HuskerShark]

 

I don't know.

Hence the problem with your credibility.

 

 

So since he doesn't know people in your extended family, he's not credible?.... WHAT?!

[knapplc]

 

 

I don't know.

Hence the problem with your credibility.

 

So since he doesn't know people in your extended family, he's not credible?.... WHAT?!

 

He doesn't know if torture works. He doesn't know who the bad guys are. He doesn't know if the stories this fabled Marine told were true.

 

He doesn't know.

 

And that's why the pro-torture stance lacks credibility.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

I don't know.

Hence the problem with your credibility.

 

So since he doesn't know people in your extended family, he's not credible?.... WHAT?!

 

He doesn't know if torture works. He doesn't know who the bad guys are. He doesn't know if the stories this fabled Marine told were true.

 

He doesn't know.

 

And that's why the pro-torture stance lacks credibility.

 

 

That's not the question of yours that he answered. He said he didn't know your extended family, and didn't know if their stories were 100% true.

 

Basically what this boils down to is that you have a firm stance on the issue, and you'll use any little nugget at your disposal to try to point out that you're right, when that's not what he said.

 

That's what politicians try to do.

 

That's why I despise politics.

 

That's why I am for Trump.

[zoogs]

This is a pretty good example of fear used as a tool. Drop a little fear of our evil enemies and even Americans, proud torchbearers of the enlightened West, will gladly give their government carte blanche to do whatever heinous things 'necessary' to fellow man.

 

In the name of security, so it's okay.

[knapplc]

Donald Trump is a consummate politician.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

Let me rephrase what knapp said. If you're going to torture someone, you should know ahead of time that torture actually works. "For all we know it works" is not a good enough reason to support something.

 

 

 

With the types of individuals we're talking about using enhanced interrogation techniques on, I'm all for taking the risk that "it doesn't work" every time. Earlier, I said if it works 1 in 1000 times, it's worth it, but I'd go further than that. If the interrogator is able to squeeze some information out of these people 1 in a million times, and is able to use that info to save the lives of innocent people, I'm all for it. (and for the record, I believe the rate would be much higher than that)

[knapplc]

With the types of individuals we're talking about using enhanced interrogation techniques on, I'm all for taking the risk that "it doesn't work" every time. Earlier, I said if it works 1 in 1000 times, it's worth it, but I'd go further than that. If the interrogator is able to squeeze some information out of these people 1 in a million times, and is able to use that info to save the lives of innocent people, I'm all for it. (and for the record, I believe the rate would be much higher than that)

Someone in your town is suspected of being a terrorist. How many people in your town are you OK with having tortured to find out who the terrorist is?

 

Are you OK with your mom being tortured?

 

Your dad?

 

Sister?

 

Brother?

 

Wife?

 

Son?

 

Daughter?

 

Best friend?

 

Neighbor?

 

Even if they're all innocent, but eventually we get to the bad guy, is it OK that we tortured all your loved ones?

[BigRedBuster]

[teachercd]

Is that an emoji of waterboarding and pills being used at torture?

[HuskerShark]

 

With the types of individuals we're talking about using enhanced interrogation techniques on, I'm all for taking the risk that "it doesn't work" every time. Earlier, I said if it works 1 in 1000 times, it's worth it, but I'd go further than that. If the interrogator is able to squeeze some information out of these people 1 in a million times, and is able to use that info to save the lives of innocent people, I'm all for it. (and for the record, I believe the rate would be much higher than that)

Someone in your town is suspected of being a terrorist. How many people in your town are you OK with having tortured to find out who the terrorist is?

 

Are you OK with your mom being tortured?

 

Your dad?

 

Sister?

 

Brother?

 

Wife?

 

Son?

 

Daughter?

 

Best friend?

 

Neighbor?

 

Even if they're all innocent, but eventually we get to the bad guy, is it OK that we tortured all your loved ones?

That's not even remotely what we're talking about. Why would my loved ones be tortured if they're not terrorists? You lost me.