It may be counter productive to try and argue both (totally consistent) positions at once since it opens you up to the implication that if it somehow worked that you&#x27;d be OK with it. Still I don&#x27;t see why we should allow pro torture advocates to own the conversation on whether it works. All evidence is to the contrary and its deeply unethical to continue trying it just in case it does. Even if not torturing did lead to innocent death&#x27;s it would be the wrong choice to torture, but simultaniously I reject that as a false choice presented by torture advocates who want you to concede that it works and give power to their argument.<p>If someone wants to claim that some action has some effect it is on them to prove it not the rest of us to refute it. US torture advocates have had every opportunity to do so and failed.