Water Boarding is an act of torture and is immoral.

Hello again. My opponent seems to have manoeuvred this debate away from a discussion of the rights and wrongs of water boarding (which he does not refer to once in round 2) and seems determined to defend his peculiar (if not "bizarre") idea of morality. This would appear to basically consist of self-preservation with a slight touch of hedonism. It is an interpretation I am not really familiar with but sounds similar to the amorality (unconcerned with right and wrong) of Aleistair Crowley who's philosophy was "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." He admits that his version is not the "Established and general interpretation of morality" which he identifies as "sacrifice of the able to the unable, altruism [which] has as it's ultimate consequence universal death." He says that the several well-sourced definitions I offer "don't define it at all." Although he later insists that "your definitions of morality, though they don't hold much definition, don't contradict mine." I am glad that he feels his own interpretation (supposedly) backed up by his one cited source (Wikepedia) is superior to that of several reputable dictionaries and although this opinion radically redefines morality it is in fact not contradictory of the "universal death" model. He claims my arguments are "nonsensical" yet apparently contradicts himself and applies whatever definitions suit his position. To examine the one link he provides: http://en.wikipedia.org..., this article seems to have little to do with a definition of morality and certainly does not show Aristotle in support of my opponent's unusual opinion. Morality or immorality are not mentioned specifically in this encyclopedia entry. Instead it discusses Eudaimonia, commonly translated as happiness, but usually seen as having connotations with virtue and knowledge. The section referring to Aristotle says: "Eudaimonia is constituted, according to Aristotle, not by honor, or wealth, or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life. Such activity manifests the virtues of character, including, honesty, pride, friendliness, and wittiness; the intellectual virtues, such as rationality in judgment; and non-sacrificial (i.e. mutually beneficial) friendships and scientific knowledge (knowledge of things that are fundamental and/or unchanging is the best).Epicurus agrees with Aristotle that eudaimonia is the highest good. However, unlike Aristotle, he identifies eudaimonia with pleasure." It sounds like the Aristotelian position supports the established version and if anyone is backing up my opponent it is the hedonist Epicurus. I said: "Is he suggesting that crimes such as murder or rape are morally acceptable if they promote (rather than serving as an obstacle to) one's existence?" My opponent said: "Correct. I have already shown what context that is false in-- the context where the target is an innocent. It is only the context where the target is already guilty of initiating force against you where such can be moral." My opponent seems here to be cheerfully condoning murder and rape as well as torture. Is he saying that if someone pushes you, you can murder them? If a woman is guilty of slapping him around the face, he is morally entitled to rape her? "That's an epistemic, not a moral issue." Nice use of vocabulary. I argue that if knowledge is accepted without sufficient proof it becomes a moral issue. "the US forces were not the ones who initiated force." I dispute this strongly. US have not been invaded by any middle-eastern country, they have been attacked a few times by international terrorist organisations. If they then invade nations then they are definitely initiating force against the innocent people of those nations, creating more terrorists out of innocent civilians. "the initiation of force started happening thousands of years before the US ever existed in the form of creating oppressive theocracies and has never ceased." So they initiated force against the US before the US existed? I will refrain from labelling my opponent's arguments nonsensical but would suggest there is a lack of sense in this statement. My opponent seems to think that establishing a religious state (oppressive theocracy) is an initiation of force but this is perhaps a topic for a separate debate. Point is these people did not initiate force against the US. "Ad authoritatem." Forgive my ignorance but I don't speak whatever language or jargon this is, could you please provide an English translation? To conclude this round I reaffirm: Water boarding is a form of torture. Torture is Immoral. My opponent has yet to address either of these. My opponent is attempting to debate the semantics of morality with no references or external justification for his own concept of what it means. I am arguing about morality as defined by most (all?) independent sources. Thankyou.