Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

I will not state my views in that format for several reasons. Firstly, it is impossible to know that torture is the only feasible means. Secondly, it's doubtful the suspect in the situation you describe would be found, making it hard for torture to even be a factor. Thirdly, I am not concerned with the ends in judging the morality of an action. Again, the ends do not justify the means. My belief stems from the inherent dignity and rights we have as humans. As humans, we are developed enough and rational enough to recognize the rights and dignity of others. In the first round, my opponent conceded that torture violates human rights. In recognizing these human rights, my opponent and I acknowledge that it's morally wrong to deprive people of them. An action that impedes upon the freedom of another being is always morally reprehensible. I did not misunderstand the argument as it was written. The argument did not explicitly make the point that because we are willing to accept collateral damage, we somehow make it morally acceptable. First of all, it's an argumentum ad populum to assume because people "accept" something, they make it morally permissible. Secondly, there was no evidence to back up the claim that many people think it's morally permissible. The two are not analogous. For one, torture is deliberate, while collateral damage is accidental. Collateral damage is more extreme as well because it completely deprives someone of their rights, rather than just depriving them of some rights. My suggestion of building rapports was not irrelevant. There are many different things that can immediately build rapports. Putting someone who appears to be coming from the same background or someone who looks like the subject could help build rapport. Putting someone of the same race, religion, or nationality could help build rapport. The situations still provide time to build rapport. The resolution you created is impossible to prove, as it is a generalization. The sheer fact that torture is not morally permissible by various moral standards makes it impossible for you to prove the resolution. International law is about as objective or universal as you get, as almost all countries on the planet have agreed to the law. This pertains to the resolution since my definition of "moral" was "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical". My opponent appears to have misunderstood my statement when accusing me of "slight of hand" of some sort. The point of my statement was that one can't just justify torture in certain situations to affirm the resolution. One has to morally justify torture in certain situations, a seemingly impossible task, as there is no objective set of moral standards. The problem in my opponent's line of thinking comes with the first premise. This premise is just a claim, as there has been little evidence to suggest that it is morally acceptable. In the second premise, my opponent appears to be weighing the morality of different actions. This is irrelevant because something is morally wrong, regardless of other actions. Rather than showing that torture is morally permissible, my opponent states in the third premise that torture is "less ethically wrong". This implies that torture is ethically wrong. This is a fatal mistake in my opponent's argument as it completely contradicts the resolution. I would like to end by saying that as long as we dignify human rights, we cannot morally defend the violation of such rights. Using the ends to justify violating rights sets a dangerous precedent. It sets a precedent that shows that someone can have their basic human liberties taken away if another believes it will help out society or humanity in the end. This can lead down a dangerous road, and it will only be worse for society at that point.