Some case of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

1.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. 2.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. 3.It is never permissible intentionally to inflict severe pain or severe harm on someone unwilling, unless the pain/harm is intended for their benefit, as a punishment, as part of a legitimate war, or to prevent the individual from causing severe pain or harm to innocents 4. Torture is a means of preventing terrorism and terrorist acts. 5.Torture is falsely depicted in media showing that all torture is bad but indeed there are forms of torture that are not physical. 6.Moral is a standard that is acceptable in behavior. 7. There will always be bad people doing bad things to innocent people but there is acceptableness in torture that helps prevent these people from causing harm. 8. Therefore, there are some cases of minimally, morally justified torture. As I was going through this debate I ended up making some changes to better my argument. I took out the premise which said that " Torture is more humane than what terrorists do to people they capture" because it seemed kind of irrelevant to me and did not really enhance what I was trying to argue. It is not about being more humane it is about doing what is right for the certain situation. In replace of that premise I put that " Torture is falsely depicted in media showing that all torture is bad but indeed there are forms of torture that are not physical" because it is the truth and one should realize that we are shaped to hate the idea of torture when it is actually necessary in some cases. Media easily forms ideas in our heads telling us what is right and what is wrong without proper evidence and argumentation. Another premise I took out as the one which said " What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger". I took this one out because it can be seen as very controversial. The statement is pretty vague and does not showcase why torture can be seen as acceptable in some cases. I think I was trying to say that torturing someone will not kill them but it will only make them stronger. This was not a good premise because the intention isn't for the person to get stronger , the intention is to get information out of the person. To replace this statement I put that "There will always be bad people doing bad things to innocent people but there is acceptableness in torture that helps prevent these people from causing harm". This statement provides an example where torture is justified and is useful in helping others. Given the whole debate on whether there are some cases of minimally, morally justified torture I am still standing strong for being on the pro side of this argument. I believe that torture is a very challenging topic because of the different sides you can go on. Torture for some can be seen as repulsive and unjustified no matter what the circumstance but for others they can see where torture is needed in order to gain information that could negatively affect a person's life. As a pro arguer I had to examine torture as a whole and try to prove that torture can be seen as acceptable which is pretty hard given the foundation that torture has been seen as being. While I formed my argument for every round I was able to see both the positives and negatives of torture. I knew that torture can be viewed as terrible but I also knew I had to argue that there are some instances where torture is tolerable. A good way I found to argue this was to put con in the shoes of a victim's family member, friend, or loved one. Almost everybody would be able to agree to the fact that if someone they knew and love were part of this situation where they could be harmed they would allow the torturer to torture the person in charge to save their loved one's life. Ultimately, I learned a lot through this argument and found it very beneficial in my knowledge.