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 more humane than what terrorists do to people they capture. 6.Moral is a standard that is acceptable in behavior. 7. What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger. 8. There are some cases of minimally, morally justified torture. It is clear we do not agree about the fact that torturing someone transpires that the torturer to get very caught up into the torture that they go beyond the limits, therefore making it murder. This statement is controversial because of the declaration that murder is a result of torture when it is not definite in all cases. My Premise seven contradicts this statement because it is clear that torturers main goal isn't to murder the tortured but just to torture him to get information from them. We also do not agree that torture is morally wrong and that torture is not necessary for the function of society because of obvious reasons that I am debating against that claim. I believe that that there are instances where torture can be seen as morally right. This can be seen in my Premise three which states multiple cases where torture is acceptable. I also believe that torture indeed is necessary in the case that millions of lives could be in danger because of someone and society will not be the same if something harmful were to happen to all of them. Torture is necessary in society in order to have a society. Another point I wanted to bring up is if humans are entitled to their own beliefs then why are you against people who see that torture as acceptable. This premise is controversial because as pro I could say the same thing and it's a bit vague. This premise could also be seen as non controversial because in both instances they end up agreeing. Evidently, the torturer has their own belief that it is acceptable to torture in certain circumstances which is a belief they are entitled to. It is also clear that some statements in the argument are non controversial. In con's argument Premise one is non controversial because it is the definition of torture and definitions cannot be controversial since it is clear cut. We essentially have the same definition for torture. Premise four is also non controversial because the definition is accurate for moral. Our definition for moral is also similar on the aspects of what is right and what is wrong. In Premise three where it says that there is no guarantee that the person being tortured has correct or accurate information is not up for debate because the person being tortured could easily give false information in order to spare themselves from being tortured. This statement is kind of iffy because it all depends on chance and whether or not the person will risk lying to not be tortured. In my argument Premise four is controversial because it is just one of many means that that torture prevents. Premise five is controversial because it depends on perspective. Some people may see it as more humane while others may see it as less humane. Premise seven is controversial because it's kind of a vague statement that could have two possible meanings. One could be interpreted emotionally while the other could be interpreted physically. Those that are controversial could be true if provided with more examples and a clearer explanation of the statement.