Torch 'er

My opinion on the torture issue didn't change as a result of the debate. I'm still firmly rooted in the same place as before, I don't believe torture is "never permissible" because there are instances when it is. The hard thing about being made to argue the opposite of what I believe is that I couldn't come up with an argument on the opposing side that would change my mind. However that wasn't why I kept quiet during the debate. I was hoping to give the people with participation deficits a chance to earn points (and that worked out gloriously). One moderately retarded idea I had was that, as an alternative to torture, we could just give into all the demands of the terrorist - either outright, or as a ruse. That might succeed in saving the lives of the innocents at risk. But it would certainly piss the terrorists and their supporters off considerably/ have obvious ramifications if we hadn't been lying, and be the kind of thing we could only likely get away with once...

Like I said before, I pretty much agreed with all the arguments, reasons, evidence and assumptions made in the essay. It was like preaching to the converted.