Torture Is Never Justified

Many societies use torture as way of extracting information from people who will not easily give up much needed information. Torture is a topic of controversy in our world and has been for years now. Although torture may work in some instances, studies repeatedly show over and over that it is not effective. Oftentimes, people will say anything and even provide incorrect information to stop the suffering. I have analyzed opinion articles such as Torture is Morally Reprehensible by Kim Petersen and Torture is Never Justified by Nikki Burgess. Both articles display a negative opinion on the topic of torture. Although the scholarly article is written by professionals like Petersen and is peer reviewed, it is a weaker paper in my opinion compared to the popular article written by Burgess. Burgess’ paper uses a variety of ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the article whereas Petersen’s paper was quite limited in these writing techniques. Ethos, pathos, and logos are appeals that writers use to prove their point. Ethos has to do with credibility. An example of this is when a scientist writes a scholarly article; you know that they are knowledgeable about the topic. Pathos appeals to the emotions. For example, a commercial that shows sad puppies up for adoption is utilizing the pathos appeal. Lastly, logos is when the writer is using logic to make a point. Burgess perfectly incorporated pathos in her paper. She definitely made the reader feel for the people being tortured. She explains how the “prisoners display visible signs of agony” from “sleep deprivation, threats”, “waterboarding, and rectal feeding” which will easily “make most humans cringe” (Burgess). As members of a country that tortures so called “terrorists”, we rarely think of these prisoners as human. Burgess does an amazing job making the reader visualize the disgusting actions that humans take part in. Feeling sympathy for other living beings, including humans, is an important trait to have in daily life. She doesn’t have much background on the topic, but she is involved in her university and even has a job there which gives a bit of credibility. Her strategy in using logos is quite strong because she incorporates lots of logic that is basically unarguable. Throughout her article, she explains how torture is a weak form of interrogation and how it is basically useless. On the other hand, Petersen mainly writes cold hard facts that does not draw the reader in at all. She explains how torture is cruel through logos and how the United States should stop their use of torture. Rather than elaborating on why torture is cruel, she stops at the facts. When there is no analysis, the paper is …show more content…
Burgess writes about how “torture tactics rarely- if ever - [leads] to intelligence acquisition” and that treating people humanely by “utilizing rapport and psychology [has] historically proven successful” (Burgess). Being able to debunk the opposing side is something that Burgess exceeds at doing. Therefore, her paper is extremely efficient at proposing her opinion and even persuading the reader. Once again, Petersen’s paper does not meet up to the standards of Burgess’ paper. Petersen’s article does an awful job at explaining why torture is morally unacceptable. When little or no information is provided to back up a claim, the argument is invalid. Without the supporting evidence, there is no structure and therefore the argument can easily be