A) unsurprisingly well written. time for me to nitpick without tackling the content for fear of bias though. B) stay in tense! the voice is great throughout but things like: [quote]Just as a medical unit will triage patients – often sacrificing one who may have arrived earlier than others, but would expend too many resources (time, supplies, etc.) to save for the benefit of someone else who may arrive later, but is more easily treated – so too is torture a means of outweighing the harm of one action with the good of its result[/quote] i) you between present, past, and future tense here. ii) this is a run on. the little hyphenated section is really messing around with me XD iii) might be some dangling modifiers somewhere there. let's see... it should be more like [quote]Just as medical units triage patients- often sacrificing one who, in spite of arriving earlier than others, expends too many resources (time, supplies, etc.) and instead saving for the benefit of another patient who arrives later and is easier to treat- so too is torture a means of outweighing the harm of one action with the good of its result.[/quote] [still a runon, i'd break it up if i were you, but if you'd like to stick with the sentence, this is the way i'd write it.] C) the interrogative sentences are clicheeeeee and kinda unnecessary. seems like it's just there to lengthen the essay. like, uh [quote]A fair rebuttal is that torture is ineffective; however, is that really a valid response?[/quote] erm... if it's already deemed a fair rebuttal, why cast doubt on the validity of it as a response? and what's the point of the question in general? it seems far too much like you're trying to throw your topic sentence out there in a "look at this" fashion. i'd try to integrate it better with the rest of the work. D) [quote]torture because it’s intrinsically[/quote] [quote]because it's[/quote] [quote]it's[/quote] [i]no contractions![/i] E) again, turkey, your vocabulary and sentence construction is consistently amazing. try to remove extra words that just seem there to take up space. ex. [quote]The entire supposition of torture proponents is that torture is extrinsically good because of the good it causes.[/quote] [quote]Torture proponents' suppositions are that torture is extrinsically good due to the good it causes.[/quote] --- basically just fix these problems with the rest of the sentences too. other than that super impressed [and, again, unsurprised XD]. especially at the lack of faulty subordination. with a revision or two it'd be perfect! oop didn't see this [quote]Is my language too flowery? (i.e., am I using big words just to sound smart) Do I ignore counterarguments? Do I have any filler? Can anything be cut?[/quote] A) no! B) no! C) yes!

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.

What class is this for? There's a lack of citations here. Reads like an overview *shrugs*

Remember to state that while torture may not give out truthful information, uncomfortable situations will most definitely make it more difficult to lie(keeping a story straight is difficult when repeatedly stuffed into a small container and/or water boarded for days on end, no?).

Your thesis tho. Very strong, assertive, and clearly states what you argue later. I was not confused at all while reading at it, your language is sophisticated, and you obviously know what you're talking about. One question though: is it supposed to be purely argumentative with no citations of any sort?

Gotta use pathos dawg

i'm gonna plagiarize the shit out of that

I writ a small essay about Torture a long time ago, it was in the beginning of High School and was about as professional and graphically correct as a pre-school crayon drawing, but I did do it! I will read yours and try and see if I'm able to make sense of something out of my clerical range. [quote]Torture is not the use violence to inflict injury for injury’s sake,[/quote] Fix that. Have you mentioned the TV Show 24 at all yet? In my opinion after doing mine, I hinged my thesis on the statement that we use Torture to try and enact some control on someone else in the name of a possibly morally right situation, but ultimately we're bargaining with human lives and we can't begin to speak from a moral high-ground if the first step in our plan has already involved the cruel treatment of others. And some other things after that.