As far as public debate is concerned, that's a rather Machiavellian view, but yes, the very fact that debate is permitted improves the democratic face of the state, which in turn, is used to mitigate claims of torture. The challenge is to find new ways of addressing the issue. One negative, though perhaps unavoidable, effect of documenting torture is that the more information you provide, the more mundane torture becomes. Overloading people with information that they are not prepared to confront causes them to neutralize the impact of such knowledge rather than find ways to protest it. These groups are amenable to peer group pressure and shaming.
Doctors are a good example.
There is no evidence, as there is elsewhere, that Israeli doctors are actually involved in inflicting torture. These are clear violations of the World Medical Association's 1975 Tokyo Declaration. We should press international medical organizations to ban Israeli doctors from their forums, as was done to white South African doctors. The same with the legal profession. The common strategy is to create a situation in which the consequences of people denying what they know become greater than the consequences of confronting this knowledge.