The Case for Torture Wins Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances. Marzieh Ghiasi is a female Muslim college student who wrote a rebuttal to Levin 's Case for Torture where she uses logic to deconstruct his argument and prove that torture is not an acceptable practice. Both of their papers are good arguments and have great points to support them, but ultimately, I would say that Levin’s argument on torture being morally acceptable is the better argument. Levin uses many examples and devices to fill his article with Pathos as Ghiasi has a Logos approach but doesn’t have very many devices throughout her article to support her argument. Levin uses many hyperbolic situations that he uses to explain when and why torture would be acceptable. Within these hyperbolic situations he makes a very strong appeal to Pathos. In one of Levin’s hyperboles he says (1982) “Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital.” By using this hyperbole he gets a lot of pathos within his argument and gains …show more content…
Cohen said in his speech For Arguments Sake, (2013) “We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. That 's the kind of argument we want.” Levin’s argument was more militant, his argument was more to the point rather than Ghisai’s argument that was a little disconnected with its logical thinking. Although both are good arguments I would say that Levin’s argument is the best one because it was a” killer argument” it had so much more appeal than Ghisai’s so it was the superior