Water Boarding is an act of torture and is immoral.

"This debate is in danger of becoming bogged in by semantics if my opponent and I continue to debate the interpretation of morality." Semantics doesn't "Bog" a debate. It's the only thing that gives a debate any-- well, frankly, meaning. :P To evade semantics is to evade the fact that the resolution means something, arguments mean something, etc. " Basically I have suggested that morality is a knowledge of right and wrong" That offers us a synonym, and therefore gets us nowhere-- "right and wrong" have to be right for a purpose or wrong for a purpose, right by a standard or wrong by a standard. The only purpose, the only standard, proposed, has been by me-- life. "and that immoral actions are those which go against widely held opinion and common consensus" You're placing the ad populum fallacy on the throne here. " My opponent dismisses these definitions saying: "they don't define it at all" without giving valid reason, although he does maintain that my interpretation backed up by these definitions is indeed the ""Established and general interpretation of morality."" Straw man, sacrificng the able to the unable is what I referred to as "established and general--" or the closest thing to it that exists. " In turn my opponent substitutes his own version of Morality (basically selfishness) without any exterior source to back him up other than spurious and extremely vague references to Aristotle and insists we are stuck with his definition. " Because you haven't offered an alternative. Offering synonyms is not the same as clarifying the concept in question, when those synonyms are no clearer. " So my opponent makes it clear that his argument is for the use of torture in general being morally good. " The resolution was given as an absolute. There merely has to be some instance (not a general case) in which torture is morally good to disprove it. The instance I gave was torture of a guilty person for the purpose of gathering intelligence that saves many innocent lives, including many valued by the torturer :). " "Torture is immoral, illegal, and counterproductive. Torture undermines the moral and legal principles on which society is based. Moral authority and the ability to pressure allies are lost when world leaders resort to torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading practices." I'd think that allowing a guilty person's pain capacity to stand in the way of saving thousands of lives undermines "authority" and ability of any sort much more effectively. By the way, Amnesty International is not an organization known for the study of political science, of how to rule effectively. It has no authority on the matter of "the ability to pressure allies," the ability to make a legal system work. An example of an expert on such matters would be Machiavelli, who tells us that not only love (the response to people approving of your actions), but far more importantly fear, can make a system operate. There is little doubt of the fear-inducing capacity of torturing one's enemies. "As a means of interrogation, torture often results in false statements" You seem to be missing something. In the intelligence community, you don't need certainty when you are interrogating an enemy-- you need leads, starting points. And the person in question will remain in your custody long after the information can be confirmed or denied-- meaning, as a practical matter, the specific use of torture being advocated here will NOT lead to false statements much of the time-- as there is significant motivation not to do so. "and instills resentment and anger in the victims, their families, friends, and community, and generates embittered opponents" Each and every one of those items is already full of resentment and anger. Resentment and anger has diminishing consequences after a certain point, if someone is already angry enough at you that they are trying to kill you or allied with those who are, making them angrier does not increase the danger to you-- indeed, it lessens it, as they are more likely to make mistakes in attacking you, more likely to have a heart attack, and less likely to be eloquent propagandists. :). " "Retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair, President Obama's nominee to lead the U.S. intelligence community, told Congress yesterday that torture "is not moral, legal or effective"" He wouldn't be employed in that capacity if he didn't say that, furthermore, he joined the military at a time in which, for ideological reasons, the official (and unresearched) position of the military was that torture secured only falsehoods, solely to serve as propaganda to bypass tortures practiced by communists in demanding ideological agreement from American POWs (Not, mind, a use of torture I have advocated here). As such, there is no reason to trust he's being honest, and plenty of reason to believe he'd say that with no knowledge. Indeed, in regard to his honesty, he is known to have violated conflict of interest standards in his work for the IDA. Furthermore, torture's effectiveness varies as different occupational and cultural groups have different tolerance for pain of all sorts--lhighlights of Dennis Blair's career consist of service on guided missile destroyers (not a place HUMINT training is likely high on the priority list as far as I can tell), and disobeying orders as US Pacific Commander in East Timor. They do not consist of dealing with such Islamic militants as he would have to have actual HUMINT dealings with to make an expert judgment on the effectiveness of torture, and specifically of waterboarding. The people with the most expertise on the matter (the officials who carried out the CIA waterboardings known to have occurred) happen to state that the information they gathered was effective. Is this scientific data? No. Is it better than the opinion of an admiral who would have never had his job if he said any differently, has no known direct experience with torture as interrogation, and is known to have violated the impartiality standards of his own employer in the past? I should think so. " "We, as humans say what is evil or moral. " "We" say nothing in particular, or "We" would not ever argue with one another. " So we see the appointees of democratically elected presidents, leading international charities as well as leading figures from Atheist and religious groups, all agreeing that torture is immoral: a wide ranging common consensus. " Ad populum. " We also see many examples of the counter-productivity of torture" No we do not. We see unsupported possibility, as opposed to the possibility that it saves lives, a possibility supported by the CIA officials who have actual experience in the matter. "without even considering the mental impact it must have personally to those ordered to carry it out." HUMINT is carried out by professionals who chose their job.