Our conclusion

    After much research on the topic, we have decided that torture is not necessary for United States national security. This is because the arguments presented for the opposition side clearly show that torture is barbaric, gives false evidence, and is unpopular among top officials and professionals. 
    Although the proposition insisted that the "ticking bomb scenario" creates a necessity for torture as an interrogation method, the oppositions' refutation of the point swung the debate. Not only did the opposition prove that torture gives back unreliable results, but that there are other methods of interrogation that are less violent and more effective. Evidence from the Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter One  states "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." 
    Evidence from the opposition and Steven M. Goldman commissioner, Department of Banking and Insurance,
 also shows that interrogators have found that by using a softer approach, they have been able to elicit more information about the said crime. This approach also avoids the embarrassment of torturing possibly innocent people. Therefore, torture is not necessary for national security.

What do you think? Is torture indeed unnecessary? Feel free to comment in the section below.

-Paris and Isabel
Comments