None of the three examples proposed are the WAiTW. From Yvain's article, the distinction between the Worst Argument in the World and something that isn't is more about good intentions combined with good outcomes rather than whether or not the undesirable outcomes match the definition of the action. If a certain action both has good outcomes and is well-intended (e.g. abortion - done for the sake of the mother's or father's livelihood, not to maliciously kill a "human" being), then it does not fit the definition of "murder" because it doesn't share the intentions of murder, even though the "bad" outcomes are similar. Murder is unjustifiable; abortion is justified by the benefits it brings to already existing people and also because it does not affect any existing person negatively. Same can be said for genetic engineering - it is done with good intentions and would ideally produce good results, and while some outcomes may share some characteristics with eugenics (e.g. altering the gene pool), the means to reach the outcome are far more ethical and nobody is negatively affected by genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is morally justifiable. Eugenics is not.
Now, examining the example of rape - having sex with a sleeping person who is a stranger to you is done with wrong intentions - malicious lust, selfishness, thirst for power, and lack of compassion for the victim. The outcomes are equally bad - complete violation of the victim, extreme fear induced in the victim (upon awakening, but most definitely real), pain inflicted upon the victim (involuntary penetration is going to hurt upon awakening, along with any other possible violence used), risk of pregnancy and STD's, the list goes on. There are no good outcomes of forcing sex upon a sleeping stranger and it shares all the wrong intentions and most of the bad outcomes of the more commonly reflected upon back-alley rape. But it still fits every definition of the word (i.e. sex without consent). Having sex with a sleeping stranger is unequivocally rape and that example is not the WAiTW.
Same can be said for the torture example. The intentions are ill; the outcomes are bad. The aim is to destabilize and inflict extreme discomfort upon a victim for whatever reasons deemed important by the torturer. The outcomes are also bad - the victim has been traumatized. Did they bleed, lose any limbs, or burn nearly to death? No. But an action does not need to fit all possible bad outcomes of a word (in this case, torture) for it to fit the definition of it.
Writing and cashing bad checks is also theft. The action is driven by greed, selfishness, and again a lack of compassion. The outcomes are also equivalent to theft - the victim's money is gone. Their house wasn't broken into and their dog wasn't kicked, but the money still came out of their pocket and is now wrongfully in the possession of the thief.
If a person drives away with a stranger's car while the keys are in the ignition, is it car theft? I would say yes. A bad action does not have to share all possible outcomes of "theft", "rape", or "murder" for it to be defined as such. The windows weren't smashed, the electronics were not tinkered with, but the car was still stolen. The sleeping person was still raped (even though they weren't threatened at knife point), the sleep deprived person was still tortured (even though their skin was not broken), and the person who had money taken from them through bad checks was still stolen from (even though they weren't mugged for their wallet).
None of the three examples proposed are the WAiTW. From Yvain's article, the distinction between the Worst Argument in the World and something that isn't is more about good intentions combined with good outcomes rather than whether or not the undesirable outcomes match the definition of the action. If a certain action both has good outcomes and is well-intended (e.g. abortion - done for the sake of the mother's or father's livelihood, not to maliciously kill a "human" being), then it does not fit the definition of "murder" because it doesn't share the intentions of murder, even though the "bad" outcomes are similar. Murder is unjustifiable; abortion is justified by the benefits it brings to already existing people and also because it does not affect any existing person negatively. Same can be said for genetic engineering - it is done with good intentions and would ideally produce good results, and while some outcomes may share some characteristics with eugenics (e.g. altering the gene pool), the means to reach the outcome are far more ethical and nobody is negatively affected by genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is morally justifiable. Eugenics is not.
Now, examining the example of rape - having sex with a sleeping person who is a stranger to you is done with wrong intentions - malicious lust, selfishness, thirst for power, and lack of compassion for the victim. The outcomes are equally bad - complete violation of the victim, extreme fear induced in the victim (upon awakening, but most definitely real), pain inflicted upon the victim (involuntary penetration is going to hurt upon awakening, along with any other possible violence used), risk of pregnancy and STD's, the list goes on. There are no good outcomes of forcing sex upon a sleeping stranger and it shares all the wrong intentions and most of the bad outcomes of the more commonly reflected upon back-alley rape. But it still fits every definition of the word (i.e. sex without consent). Having sex with a sleeping stranger is unequivocally rape and that example is not the WAiTW.
Same can be said for the torture example. The intentions are ill; the outcomes are bad. The aim is to destabilize and inflict extreme discomfort upon a victim for whatever reasons deemed important by the torturer. The outcomes are also bad - the victim has been traumatized. Did they bleed, lose any limbs, or burn nearly to death? No. But an action does not need to fit all possible bad outcomes of a word (in this case, torture) for it to fit the definition of it.
Writing and cashing bad checks is also theft. The action is driven by greed, selfishness, and again a lack of compassion. The outcomes are also equivalent to theft - the victim's money is gone. Their house wasn't broken into and their dog wasn't kicked, but the money still came out of their pocket and is now wrongfully in the possession of the thief.
If a person drives away with a stranger's car while the keys are in the ignition, is it car theft? I would say yes. A bad action does not have to share all possible outcomes of "theft", "rape", or "murder" for it to be defined as such. The windows weren't smashed, the electronics were not tinkered with, but the car was still stolen. The sleeping person was still raped (even though they weren't threatened at knife point), the sleep deprived person was still tortured (even though their skin was not broken), and the person who had money taken from them through bad checks was still stolen from (even though they weren't mugged for their wallet).