Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that the pro-torture and anti-torture moral arguments are objectively equally strong, then you're really saying there isn't a moral argument at all and torture may well be OK if it worked. If you mean that being anti-torture doesn't make you a perfect debating machine and a pro-torture person might be able to "win" the argument despite having an objectively wrong argument, then the same thing could be said about arguing the empirical case -- the anti-torture pragmatic case isn't "the sky is blue" or "let me drop this apple on your head" level obvious, so a clever debater could make a seemingly plausible pragmatic pro-torture case.