I disagree when you say, "Always remember: saying things like 'It all depends on how you define torture' marks you as a moral imbecile. Don't let that happen to you."
People first encountering this issue, are more or less bound to want to know "What do we mean by 'torture'?" Especially in a culture where bedwetters and hyperventilators will tell you that making Johnny do too much math is 'torture'.
However, when reasonable people have given reasonable answers to that question which reasonable adults can accept (I mean "reasonable adults" like lexicographers, moral theologians, judges, international bodies and ordinary people in the street) and the person supposedly "puzzled" about torture then spends six years rejecting definition after definition after definition after definition while proposing none of their own, all while resolutely defending the proposition "I may not know what torture is, but I am absolutely certain that forcibly subjecting somebody to simulated drowning is not it!"--and claiming the person who offered all the definitions "refuses to define torture"...
...then I agree with you wholeheartedly that such a person is a moral imbecile.
I think we should either remove or edit Sean's quote from the sidebar to make clear that merely asking "What is torture?" is not the problem.