Some case of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.

1. Torture is considered to be the deliberate infliction of severe painful distress, where the person undergoing the procedure is helpless, in order to leave the person no choice but to give into the demands of the torturer. 2. Human Beings are entitled to their own beliefs. Torturing a person for the sake of disagreeing with their belief does not make their belief depart. Different societies and different religions and groups have different views on numerous things. Saying or physically inflicting pain into a person does not make the belief go away. Terrorists are often quite similar to dogmatists. A dogmatist is someone that will not change their belief no matter what you do to try and change it. Most terrorists live like this, so how would torturing a person like that make their beliefs stop? 3. Torture in most instances is abused and unnecessary. When torturing someone, there is no guarantee that the person being tortured has correct or accurate information. When torturing someone, it habitually transpires that the torturer gets very caught up into the torture that they go beyond the limits, therefore making it murder. 4. Torture is not always used In circumstances. Interrogating a person could suffice, rather then torture the person and make them feel as if they are near death. Just because someone is tutored does not mean it will prevent acts of terrorism. 5. My opponent"s claim for number five is irrelevant to the argument. What does the media"s depiction have to do with whether or not torture is minimally morally justified? How does the media influence torture? 6. Moral is a standard for acceptable or not acceptable behavior with in society. Different societies and different groups have their own view on what moral is morally right and what is morally wrong. What is morally right in an opposing society can be morally wrong in our society. Who are we in our own society to go into other countries, into other societies and torture the people their because we do not agree on their beliefs or values. 7. The Claim in my opponents argument number seven is too vague. What is the acceptableness in torture that helps prevent these people from causing harm? 8. My opponent has some inconsistencies in her argument. The vague and irrelevant claims inside the argument make it hard to understand that some cases of torture are minimally morally justified. Therefore , all cases of torture are never minimally morally justifiable. While going through the debate, I pretty much kept everything the way I had initially started off. Nothing really changed in my argument. My opponent and I did agree on the same definitions for moral throughout the entire argument. Our definitions of torture however changed, in the beginning of the argument we agreed but in the third argument we began to disagree. My opponent argued that torture can also be done through means of blackmail, physiological, emotional, and exposure to phobias. This started a new argument, we began to argue on what torture is or what can or can not be considered torture. Lastly we argued about what circumstances torture is considered minimally morally justified. She kept insisting that there are circumstance when torture is a must in order to save millions of lives. However, my opponent was never able to give examples on when it is intact necessary. As a Con arguer I had to analyze the pro argument and find out the inconsistencies in side her argument. Ways I did this consisted of asking questions, finding and picking out vague and irrelevant statements. My opponent was a great competitor and she definitely gave me a big challenge in debating her. In the last round of the debate, my opponent changed a few claims after I pick out her flaws. This was a good tactic, because this strengthened her argument at the end. Overall, I had a good time debating with my opponent, she put up a good challenge. I also learned a lot of new tactics about debating, that will come in handy for future debates and arguments.