Water Boarding is an act of torture and is immoral.

" My opponent seems to have manoeuvred this debate away from a discussion of the rights and wrongs of water boarding (which he does not refer to once in round 2) and seems determined to defend his peculiar (if not "bizarre") idea of morality." It's not steering the debate away from A to discuss X if A's truth or falsehood is dependent on X's truth or falsehood. " This would appear to basically consist of self-preservation with a slight touch of hedonism. It is an interpretation I am not really familiar with but sounds similar to the amorality (unconcerned with right and wrong) of Aleistair Crowley who's philosophy was "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."" How is "doing what thou wilt" in any way similar to doing what will keep you alive and hopefully happy (alive being the first requirement)? Surely telling someone considering drugs to "do what thou wilt" isn't good for their life :). " I am glad that he feels his own interpretation (supposedly) backed up by his one cited source (Wikepedia) is superior to that of several reputable dictionaries and although this opinion radically redefines morality it is in fact not contradictory of the "universal death" model." You misinterpreted. The dictionaries don't prescribe the universal death model because they don't make any prescriptions-- they just say, in essence, morality is morality, and don't go any further really in telling you what the word means :). It is they, not the "universal death" model that my statements don't contradict :). ". Instead it discusses Eudaimonia, commonly translated as happiness, but usually seen as having connotations with virtue and knowledge.he section referring to Aristotle says: "Eudaimonia is constituted, according to Aristotle, not by honor, or wealth, or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life. Such activity manifests the virtues of character, including, honesty, pride, friendliness, and wittiness; the intellectual virtues, such as rationality in judgment; and non-sacrificial (i.e. mutually beneficial) friendships and scientific knowledge (knowledge of things that are fundamental and/or unchanging is the best).Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that eudaimonia is the highest good. However, unlike Aristotle, he identifies eudaimonia with pleasure." It sounds like the Aristotelian position supports the established version and if anyone is backing up my opponent it is the hedonist Epicurus. " You missed the "human flourishing" part, the "complete life" part, the "non-sacrificial" part-- need I go on? " My opponent seems here to be cheerfully condoning murder and rape as well as torture. Is he saying that if someone pushes you, you can murder them?" Would it be conducive to one's life to attempt to murder someone every time they push you? I think not. Surely more egregious force would be required to practically justify such a retaliation. I was merely delineating the principle on which such an action would be automatically excluded from consideration. " If a woman is guilty of slapping him around the face, he is morally entitled to rape her?" See above. " Nice use of vocabulary. I argue that if knowledge is accepted without sufficient proof it becomes a moral issue. " But the question of the resolution isn't whether waterboarding without sufficient proof is immoral-- only whether waterboarding ABSOLUTELY, irregardless of any context, including the context of proof of guilt, is immoral (I'm not disputing that waterboarding is torture, so consider that something we don't have to argue.) " So they initiated force against the US before the US existed? " This (and what was above it) misunderstands the meaning of "initiate force--" To start the use of force where no one else has is to introduce the consideration of force against you by anyone, not just your immediate target. Is a court expected to stand by when an innocent is murdered, simply because the court wasn't targeted? No. The middle eastern countries in question initiated force against their own citizens. " My opponent seems to think that establishing a religious state (oppressive theocracy) is an initiation of force" As a concrete of this abstraction-- Premarital consensual sex is not an act of force. Iran, as one example, regularly stones people to death for acts of premarital consensual sex. Therefore, their legal system initiates force. The fact of the third party targeting does not remove the fact that such an initiation ( a definitely egregious one, not at all comparable to, say, shoving, by the way), opens Iran up as an on principle permissible target-- Whether to act on that permissibility becomes a problem of situational practicality of course. " Forgive my ignorance but I don't speak whatever language or jargon this is, could you please provide an English translation?" Fallacy of appeal to authority. Now, if you'd like to introduce a definition that actually gives us a standard of morality to act on, we can argue about it. Otherwise, you're stuck with the standard I've brought in :).