1. Against the Use of Torture:

   Those who argue against the use of torture emphasize several key points:

   a. Human Rights: Torture violates fundamental human rights. It subjects individuals to severe physical and psychological suffering, undermining their dignity and humanity.

   b. Ineffectiveness: Some argue that torture is ineffective as an interrogation technique. The information obtained through torture is often unreliable, as individuals may provide false information to stop the pain.

   c. International Law: Torture is explicitly prohibited under various international treaties and conventions, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Violating these agreements can damage a country’s international reputation.

   d. Slippery Slope: Allowing torture in exceptional cases may lead to its abuse and use in situations where it is not justified. It can set a dangerous precedent.

2. In Favor of Limited Use of Torture:

   Those who argue for the limited use of torture often do so with certain conditions in mind:

   a. Ticking Time Bomb Scenario: Some believe that in extreme, hypothetical situations where innocent lives are at stake (a “ticking time bomb” scenario), limited and carefully regulated use of torture might be justifiable as a last resort to obtain critical information.

   b. Accountability and Oversight: Supporters of this view stress that any use of torture must be subject to strict oversight, accountability, and legal safeguards to prevent abuse.

   c. Effectiveness in Some Cases: They argue that in certain instances, torture may yield valuable information that cannot be obtained through other means.

   d. Debate Over Morality: Some proponents contend that the moral debate surrounding torture hinges on the principle of the lesser evil, weighing the potential harm of torture against the harm caused by not preventing a catastrophic event.

It’s important to note that the use of torture is illegal in many countries and widely condemned by international organizations and human rights advocates. The debate continues, however, with policymakers, scholars, and the public considering the trade-offs between security and human rights.

As for the second part of your question, it’s essential to engage in open and respectful discussions when considering opposing viewpoints. Voting for the best argument, even if it contradicts your own stance, can help promote critical thinking and a deeper understanding of complex issues like this one. It encourages individuals to consider various perspectives and weigh the merits of each argument before forming a conclusion.