Some case of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

The definition of torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of severe painful distress, where the person undergoing the procedure is helpless, in order to leave the person no choice but to give into the demands of the torturer. You are saying that it varies in many ways, which is not true. Blackmailing is it"s own concept and is not a part of torture. Emotionally and physiologically would not be considered torture but rather interrogation which is not torture. This is just because interrogation is defined as questioning through verbal means which falls under Emotionally and physiologically. You state that exposing the suspect to their phobias will break their will, this can be true but keep in mind, by doing that you are using the concept of exposure therapy or flooding, which is again it"s own concept and not torture. You are arguing that torture does not always have to be physical which some people do not realize. However if the act is not physical then the act is not torture. My conclusion to my first round argument is indeed that torture is never minimally, morally justified. Never does mean that in no time in the past or future or on no occasion or not ever that torture is minimally morally justified. Torture is never minimally morally justified because when is it okay to put gallons of water down a persons throat? When is it okay to use a car battery to electrocute somebody? When is it okay to rip out a persons tooth with pliers? When I say never is torture okay I mean that it is never minimally morally justified to deliberately inflict extreme pain into a helpless person in order to break their will. I will admit that blackmailing, flooding, emotionally and physiological are all better ways to get information from a suspect, you must keep in mind that those are not means of torture. Those concepts are irrelevant to torture, they are irrelevant to the argument. When you say that Torture is just a way for the torturer to simply get information out of the person in order to save a life or save many lives, it sounds like you are saying that is the definition of torture and not what you said in the first round which was: Torture is the practice of forcing someone to say or do something or the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. Some instances of torture are to gain information, to terrorize some political group, or to gratify a desire on the part of the torturer to inflict suffering and to exercise power. How do we know that the person that is being tortured is guilty? How do we know that torturing the person is going to save many lives? When you say my claim is false because there are some cases where torture is justified, maybe not all cases but there are some, you never gave examples of cases when torture is minimally morally justified. By not giving me these certain circumstances, you are supporting my claim that torture is never minimally morally justified. If you can"t find a circumstance where torture is minimally morally justified, then I suppose it never is. I agree with you that there would be no need for torture if people would just leave other people out of dangerous situations. If this did not happen the world would undoubtedly be a better place. however, that will never happen. You state several times in your arguments; torturing one person's life to save many other lives is acceptable. How do you know that this is the case? How do you know that torturing that one person will stop the chaos? How do you know thousands of lives would be saved? The Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001 are great example of this. thousands of innocent lives were lost on this day. But also the United States had tortured several people before the attack happened to prevent this. You are saying that it is right to torture one person if it means we can save a great number of people by doing it however. This does not necessarily follow. We tortured people to save other lives but yet it didn't stop the attacks and we didn't save all of those lives, why?