Why would you write off people who think torture would be acceptable if the trade off is big enough. Most choices are a trade off.
If torture really doesn't work, it's an amazing argument against torture.
If torture really doesn't work, it's an amazing argument against torture.
I get very suspicious when I see conjunctive arguments that neuter hard value judgments. It's extremely common to see them: "I think you doing X is objectionable AND it doesn't even work!" Example from the right:
Gun control is unconstitutional AND criminals will still get guns anyway!
In my experience, the second half of these arguments usually has nothing to do with the arguer's real motivations, it just helps him/her avoid cognitive dissonance from the trade offs.