Torture can be morally permissible

Rebuttals 1. "Rebuttal: Torture has NO place in this world. "In my opinion, it is intellectually lazy to make this claim. I provided a scenario in which torture would prevent itself, and if you believe torture is bad, then you agree torture would have been morally acceptable in that instance. 2. "1) UtilitarianismThough Pro seemed to be correct, which calls me to concede this point, still, I just want to say that not all people are "utilitarianist". Some people opposed torture as they themselves are victims of it, or their loved ones. " Anyone who is against torture is using utilitarianism in their reasoning because they are against MORE torture. I fail to see how there is not a single situation in which torture could produce results that are more desirable to the act of torture. For instance, would you go so far as to say it is immoral for a father to volunteer for torture if for some reason he had to if he wanted to save his child? I think it would be perfectly moral for a parent to save their child volunteering for torture. So why are the motives of the person in this scenario any more noble than those of the people initiating the torture , who want to save a life, too? 3. "2) There are more ways to punish people, in fact, Death Penalty would be better than Torture. Though both deadly, Death Penalty will have to kill the person immediately, while Torture has to make him/her punish badly before death. "My opponent assumes that torture can only be used for retribution, and fails to mention torture can be used as a tool. In fact, I'm not even advocating that torture should be used for retribution. I'm simply arguing that there are cases in which torture can be morally permissible. 4. ") Many punishmentsWhy torture, if there are legal and moral ways to punish someone? Imprison or death penalty are just few. In light of death penalty, as mentioned, death penalty seem to be better than torture.2) People tend to abuse TortureIf torture is not the problem, then, its the people who use this. When torture is extremely allowed, methods of torture is getting worse. Back to Pro. "I argue that something is morally permissible if the outcomes of the act are desirable to the alternative. Torture doesn't get a free pass (like many give it), to be considered immoral simply because the act itself sounds barbaric. Why should society place the sufferings of one human above the interests of the entire universe? I argue that this is an impossible, futile, and intellectually lazy notion. Summary My opponent seems to be caught up in finding instances in which torture is immoral or ineffective, while neglecting the fact that he has to prove that torture is never morally permissible to win the debate. He is going to have to address the overarching theme of morals to win, because for his position, providing scenarios will prove nothing. I provided scenarios in which torture would be morally permissible according to the morals of people against torture. Essentially, anyone who believes torture without cause on innocent people is immoral, even after someone else is being tortured, is against MORE torture, is against MORE suffering, and cannot reasonably conclude there are no situations in which torture can reduce suffering overall.