Your language seems acceptable to me. I rather enjoyed reading this sample, it's fairly decent work. Does your instructor request sourcing the information in your paper? Just a curiosity. I'm trying very hard not to look at this as an opportunity to debate the topic, just excuse me if this next suggestion comes off that way. Perhaps I missed a part, but when you suggest that using torture as a means to extract critical information to save innocent lives, it seems as if it's always surmised that the person being tortured (or is under consideration to be tortured) is known to know the information: [quote]In the hypothetical scenario of a terrorist with a hidden bomb, he is actively carrying out the murder of civilians by refusing to disclose information which would prevent the explosion.[/quote] The first thought that comes to mind is [i]"How reasonably sure do we have to be that a person or group of people actually know the information we want to justify torture?"[/i] If we [i]know[/i] the person planted the bomb, fewer people are going to argue against torture, but what if it's simply a suspect matching a description? What if it is a known accomplice of a perpetrator of an act of extreme violence or terrorism, but we aren't sure to what extent their involvement is? I've always been against torture because of this and the historically proven unreliable nature of information gathered from such means.