Water Boarding is an act of torture and is immoral.

" Firstly my opponent seems to be interpreting morality as: "promoting rather than serving as an obstacle to one's existence." My opponent offers no source for this definition but I would suggest it is profoundly at odds with the established and general interpretation of morality." The "Established and general interpretation of morality" (sacrifice of the able to the unable, altruism) has as it's ultimate consequence universal death (since ability would be brought out of existence by consistent application of this belief, and ability is necessary for life), which the estabished and general sort of folk would themselves admit immoral, as such, it's self-contradictory. Note the definitions you've linked to define morality in terms of morality, i.e., they don't define it at all, and thus are essentially placeholders for a definition they can't decide upon. "If what is moral is merely what is in an individuals own self-interest there is no longer any good or bad in the world just selfish self-preservation." Nonsensical. If what is moral is merely what is in one's self interest, there is indeed good in the world-- what sustain's ones life-- and bad in the world-- what opposes it. "This seems to me to be the opposite of morality and I don't understand what my opponent hopes to achieve by debating immorality from an amoral standpoint." Ethical egoism and an amoral standpoint (a strawman amoral standpoint) are two entirely different things. " Secondly, my opponent seems to be saying in this first sentence that the morality of any violent act is determined solely by the context. Is he suggesting that crimes such as murder or rape are morally acceptable if they promote (rather than serving as an obstacle to) one's existence?" Correct. I have already shown what context that is false in-- the context where the target is an innocent. It is only the context where the target is already guilty of initiating force against you where such can be moral. " My opponent then goes on to concede that water boarding IS indeed immoral unless it is used "for the gathering of intelligence from known members of a guilty party." It's not a concession, it's a clarification of where I differ from the resolution's out of context absolute :). " The problem here is establishing guilt and the issue of what evidence is required for someone to be a "known" member of a "guilty" party." That's an epistemic, not a moral issue. "By his own logic my opponent seems to be suggesting that extremists would be justified in torturing members of the US armed forces for information as they would be "known" to be members of an organisation "guilty" of invading their territory and killing their people." The problem here is that the US forces were not the ones who initiated force, and therefore such invasion is guiltless (if you're speaking of the invasions in the Middle East, where the initiation of force started happening thousands of years before the US ever existed in the form of creating oppressive theocracies and has never ceased). It is the one who initiated, and those who side with the one who initiated, who are "guilty." " It is my opinion that torture is always immoral and this opinion is shared (on paper at least) by the UN, the Geneva convention and most civilised governments including those of the US and UK. " Ad authoritatem. Incidentally, my "bizarre" interpretation of morality happens to be in the same general principle as Aristotle's ethics, even if I disagree with many of his specific judgments (such as supporting slavery, an obvious ground off which to start disagreeing). http://en.wikipedia.org.... Indeed, it's fairly safe to assume that such was the original intent of philosophical study of ethics, however much it has since been corrupted with the opposite intent, the death-pursuit of altruism. I note again that my opponent's definitions of "morality" are made in terms only of "moral principles"-- including personal, societal, traditional-- except that principles, a mode of thought, are by definition only possible for individuals-- meaning technically your definitions of morality, though they don't hold much definition, don't contradict mine. :)