Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

1.Torture is defined as intentionally causing pain or suffering on an unwilling, defenseless individual either to break their will, get that person to say or do something, or for pleasure. 2.By saying something is minimally, morally acceptable, it is meant that there are some exceptions in which torture is permissible, where other cases it is impermissible. 3.Torture is justified when it saves the lives of others, a life is threatened or in danger, when self defense is necessary, and when the action is causing a threat to someone else. 4.Morality is the principles that distinct good actions, characteristics, or beliefs from bad. 5.Depending on morality views, what one thinks is permissible, another might 3think is impermissible. 6.There are different kinds of torture. 7.From a minimal sense, the torture only affects them for a short period of time where as in a maximal sense, it affects them for a long period of time. 8.It is said that minimal torture is permissible and maximal torture is not. 9.There are acts of torture that are one-off acts, which only occur once in a time of emergency, and are justifiable. 10.A defense case is one of aggression, where as an interrogation case is not. 11. Both are acceptable cases of torture. 12.A holding case stops an individual from committing an action, but in a withholding case they are not stopped, only caused to preform that action. 13.In a holding case it is permissible to use torture to prevent the action from occurring, but in a withholding case torture is impermissible. Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable. Non-controversial: Premis one is non-controversial because it is the definition of torture and both sides of the argument should agree on it. Premis five is non-controversial because it is a fact that people have different views and values. Premis six is non-controversial because it is a fact that there are different kinds of torture. Some are permissible and some are not. Premis seven is non-controversial because it is explaining definitions. Premis ten is non-controversial because it is a definition. Premis twelve is non-controversial because it is a definition. Controversial: Premis two is controversial because some may think all forms of torture are impermissible. My premis is true, however, because in some cases torture is justified. Premis three is controversial because the con side might not agree with my reasoning. This premis is true because in some certain cases, torture is justifiable based on the situation they are put in. Premis four is controversial because one might disagree with what I defined morality as. It is true because those aspects are most relevant to morality. Premis eight is controversial because one might have a different view. This is true because in some cases, torture is the only option. Premis nine is controversial, however it is true because in cases of emergency torture might be the only option in order to prevent an action or save a life. Premis eleven is controversial because it takes a side. It is true because in the situation stated, torture is permissible when information is needed from someone else, or in a self-defense case. Premis thirteen is controversial because one might disagree with the side I took. It is, however, true because in order to prevent the action from occurring torture is necessary.