Just to start everyone off, I am taking a Critical Thinking class for extra credit in my college program. It doesn't really help me get my Bachelor's or my Master's but instead gives me a better understanding of what the other side of a debate is thinking. Anyway, there are a couple of subjects being raised in this class that are up for debate amongst myself and my fellow classmates. The use of torture is the one that we are touching on this week. My professor issued us two write-ups on torture. The first advocating it and the second denouncing it. Both are extremely insightful. So much so that I thought it would create a great debate in this political wonderland we have here. Heh, the only difference is that here I will probably see a lot more mud-slinging in name calling than I'm used to in class as my professor is quick to shut down "personal attacks" that derail the debate within the classroom. Anyway, the first that I'll publish on here to get the debate started is the view in which I primarily agree with (as do others on here). It's Michael Levin's "The Case for Torture" in which he argues for the use of torture in certain circumstances. Again, this is the argument that I primarily agree with and will defend in my rebuttals. Everyone else is more than welcomed to chime in with their views. After the debate kicks off, I will publish the magazine article that my professor sent us which argues against the use of torture and brings up just as many valid arguing points. As of right now though, I want to get a true feeling for those who are against the use of torture's arguing points and not just have a rehash of the article. This isn't to put anybody who is against it at a disadvantage as you can just as easily look up other articles on Google. However, it's so that I and others can get a reading on how you all TRULY feel about torture... a hot topic around these parts. Here is the write up: Michael Levin: The Case for Torture Here are some key points made by Levin... Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands. If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes? Here are the results of an informal poll about a third, hypothetical, case. Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself. If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them. I hope I get as many bites back on this as my opinion did within the classroom.