:OO

Author Michael Levin discusses his ideas and opinions about torture in his debate "The Case for Torture". His thesis is located on the second paragraph where he states, "There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory."(681) He is explaining how torture shouldn't be used all the time,but only in certain situations where it is morally mandatory, meaning that it comes between what is good and what is bad, for example torturing someone who has threatened innocent lives. Levin's message that he is directing the reader is that, he's not addressing that torture is acceptable but that it should be an option if it means keeping innocent lives safe, he makes the reader think more briefly on this topic with many examples on terrorism and not only does he state his points throughout his debate but often goes on about why it is bad or questions why it is bad, and corrects it with an answer that lead on to his point, for example, when he states that torture is described as barbaric and then he states that although it is, letting millions of innocents die in ones actions is as well, he then asks the reader a personal question quoting, "if you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn't bring yourself to apply the electrodes.?He uses this to make the readers who don't believe in torture guilty and rethink their precise mentally on this issue.His strategies to catch the readers attention starts out with an assumption of what the general public thinks about torture. He then goes on giving specific examples on his ideas of when torture should be used. he mainly scares the reader by explaining examples dealing with terrorists and people's life's at risk Levin uses a fallacy statement when he tells the reader that torture is the only way to save the lives of thousands of people if there was a terrorist threat, this is using the fallacy known as the false dilemma, where a person, in this case Levin believes that there is only one or two possible alternatives to solve the problem. the reader doesn't even realize that there is possibly more alternatives rather than to torture the terrorist into confessing where the bomb is. Levin also asks certain people questions about torture for example when he asks the mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers who had kidnapped a new born, of course they all said yes because they know what its like to have a child and there's a deep bound between a mother and a child. He ends his debate with saying that victims are at risk unintentionally for getting hurt as oppose to terrorist who voluntarily put themselves in that position just to hurt others regardless that they hurt themselves in the process.