Justification for War in Iraq - Discuss!

[jimnyc]

Feel free to discuss the debate between Typo and Sir Evil in here if you desire.

And since LN think it's too much work to ask, I'll do so:

Why is the poll private? Why not let everyone see who voted?

Answer - Because it will only lead to additional complaints and ramblings about who voted an why. Members should vote not by their underlying beliefs of the debate in question, but vote for who they believe laid out a better argument based on the criteria I specified earlier. Revealing the names of who voted will only lead to animosity, name calling and bad blood for the board.

The votes cannot be adjusted and quite frankly, I don't care how the voting goes. The debates will speak for themselves regardless if people vote along party lines or not.

[LiberalNation]

It is more work. When you create a thread you hafta type in a title which takes work to think up said tite. Post are easier, just type the thought flowing thru your mind.

And sir evil you didn't win by that big of a margin I wouldn't be declaring victory so soon and yes I am a lesbian. What do ya think stating the obvious is some type of insult or somethin.

[Sir Evil]

Not remotely concerned with the vote either but once again hats off to Typo for legitimate debating. His work was excellent, and with little option for decent debate with most around he proved very capable.

[jimnyc]

And for the record:

No matter how the voting goes, I still think both participants are winners, and especially so in this case. Both did a great job and put up a great thread for the board to share.

Consider the voting like reputation - a tool available to the board that can't be taken too awfully seriously.

[Sir Evil]

It is more work. When you create a thread you hafta type in a title which takes work to think up said tite. Post are easier, just type the thought flowing thru your mind.

And sir evil you didn't win by that big of a margin I wouldn't be declaring victory so soon and yes I am a lesbian. What do ya think stating the obvious is some type of insult or somethin.

When have I claimed victory half wit? The only good that came out of this for me was the chance to have a fair debate to something. However when a board becomes littered with children like yourself it kind ruins the whole aspect of decency.

[LiberalNation]

When have I claimed victory half wit? The only good that came out of this for me was the chance to have a fair debate to something. However when a board becomes littered with children like yourself it kind ruins the whole aspect of decency.
lol yeah cuz I'm sooo indecent it's awe inspiring.

[Sir Evil]

lol yeah cuz I'm sooo indecent it's awe inspiring.

Glad you can agree.

[Sir Evil]

and yes I am a lesbian. What do ya think stating the obvious is some type of insult or somethin.

I was unaware, so my apolgy for the low statement.

[mrg666]

and yes I am a lesbian. What do ya think stating the obvious is some type of insult or somethin.


what a fukin waste there is not a god and thats no insult :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Ooooops!!!!!!! I posted on the wrong thread considering this issue, jimnyc. Please transfer my remarks to this thread and please do not ban me or limit me for the infraction!!!!!


Typo is much more of an individual and an American as far as I see the debate. SE gave some tremendous argument but most were repetitions of old arguments since proven false or at least flawed. I strongly encourage further debates such as this one and wish all the best for the subsequent outcomes!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sir Evil]

Typo is much more of an individual and an American as far as I see the debate. SE gave some tremendous argument but most were repetitions of old arguments since proven false or at least flawed. I strongly encourage further debates such as this one and wish all the best for the subsequent outcomes!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh2:

My argument made me less American? Psycho, the true democrat finds it way out in you every time. :beer:

[darin]

I'm having trouble deciding. For me, the problem is he sheer volume of data. As each would make points, each would make a line-item address. Therefore I'd have to read through dozens of sub-points to get to the point I thought was strongest. Perhaps we can find a way to make the discussion easier to follow? I get the sense Typo's position was based on "The war based on American Greed" - I think he didn't effectively argue that point. Meanwhile, Evil was trying to counter that argument. The discussion wasn't "Was the War based on American Greed?" - the topic was "Was the war Justified." Seemed to derail a bit for me...so I haven't yet voted.

[darin]

Ya know - for the next debate, let's have he debaters work annoymously - we can create pseudonymns or fake accounts "Pro" and "Con" - we can assign one member a position, and give him a temp password. Would it help in keeping people from voting against folk they don't like? I know if I ever did a debate MFM, Psychoblues, and a couple others would vote for 'the other guy/gal' out of their blind hatred of me. :)

[Sir Evil]

I know if I ever did a debate MFM, Psychoblues, and a couple others would vote for 'the other guy/gal' out of their blind hatred of me. :)

:laugh2:

True to that but the voting will never be fair anyway you look at it. If two anonymous users debated a political topic it will still be subjected to party lines.
I really doubt many will base opinions on presentation, or for that matter factual substance.

[jimnyc]

Ya know - for the next debate, let's have he debaters work annoymously - we can create pseudonymns or fake accounts "Pro" and "Con" - we can assign one member a position, and give him a temp password. Would it help in keeping people from voting against folk they don't like? I know if I ever did a debate MFM, Psychoblues, and a couple others would vote for 'the other guy/gal' out of their blind hatred of me. :)

In theory I think this would be a decent idea. But these debates take a lot of time and work for the opponents and I think they deserve full recognition as it plays out for their hard work.

Will some vote along party lines alone? Yes. Will some vote against another simply because they don't like them? Yes.

I look at the polls as an added benefit to the respondents to get a little bit of an idea as to how the board felt about the debate, but I don't think it actually should be seen as a way of determining a winner. Simply put, it's actually the WRONG way to determine a winner as the polls are way too easily skewered and biased.

I think everyone reading will know deep down inside who actually offered a better argument. The debates will speak for themselves. Just like in a regular political debate where no winner is actually declared, it's left up to those watching to determine for themselves.

I still think the true winners are both respondents for having an opportunity to showcase their debating skills, and the board as a whole for having a unique opportunity to witness a one on one debate without interference.

[darin]

:laugh2:

True to that but the voting will never be fair anyway you look at it. If two anonymous users debated a political topic it will still be subjected to party lines.
I really doubt many will base opinions on presentation, or for that matter factual substance.

Even if I were debating 'against' the war in Iraq, and, say...I dunno...one of the few rational Libs, or one of the few rational anti-war folks were debating FOR? :)


In theory I think this would be a decent idea. But these debates take a lot of time and work for the opponents and I think they deserve full recognition as it plays out for their hard work.


Right - at the conclusion of the voting, the debaters names are posted. :)

:D

[Sir Evil]

Even if I were debating 'against' the war in Iraq, and, say...I dunno...one of the few rational Libs, or one of the few rational anti-war folks were debating FOR? :)

Hmm, could be the only pure outcome with honest votes. Such trickery though, could be fun to see the reaction of said voters.:D

[darin]

Okay - I voted.

First, my method. I used only the first replies from each debater. I felt after their initial replies the debate took a very drastic turn.

I picked Sir Evil. This is why. Typo's opening remarks:



There are many reasons that the war in Iraq was unjustified, and I’ll discuss the most important ones in this reply. However, most of the reasons are based in a single factor: that Saddam Hussein, as tyrannical as he was, did not represent a clear and present danger to the United States in 2003.

I think he lost the debate right there, for two reasons. Firstly, his comment "there are many reasons". That's a technique used to try to convince the reader of facts the author has no intent to cover. "Of course it wasn't justified...there are dozens of reasons why!" just doesn't cut it, IMO. Secondly, his premise was wrong about Saddam 'not being a threat'. Our president stated time and again we must act against Iraq "BEFORE" they become a threat.

Tough decision though - well done on both accounts

[typomaniac]

Not remotely concerned with the vote either but once again hats off to Typo for legitimate debating. His work was excellent, and with little option for decent debate with most around he proved very capable.
Very interesting to me that you should say this. Personally, I thought that there were a wealth of options on the "unjustified" side, and very little on the "justified" side that couldn't be poked full of lots of holes.

[typomaniac]

I'm having trouble deciding. For me, the problem is he sheer volume of data. As each would make points, each would make a line-item address. Therefore I'd have to read through dozens of sub-points to get to the point I thought was strongest. Perhaps we can find a way to make the discussion easier to follow? I get the sense Typo's position was based on "The war based on American Greed" - I think he didn't effectively argue that point. Meanwhile, Evil was trying to counter that argument. The discussion wasn't "Was the War based on American Greed?" - the topic was "Was the war Justified." Seemed to derail a bit for me...so I haven't yet voted.

Sorry you got that impression; the greed issue turned out to be only a minor part of my whole case.

[Sir Evil]

Very interesting to me that you should say this. Personally, I thought that there were a wealth of options on the "unjustified" side, and very little on the "justified" side that couldn't be poked full of lots of holes.

?????

I'm talking about it being a good debate, and how you made for a good opponent as there is little to no chance of decent debate around here, Umm a compliments of sorts but now you come over, and wanna provide holes in my argument?

:laugh2:
Whatever....

[typomaniac]

I think he [Typo] lost the debate right there, for two reasons. Firstly, his comment "there are many reasons". That's a technique used to try to convince the reader of facts the author has no intent to cover. "Of course it wasn't justified...there are dozens of reasons why!" just doesn't cut it, IMO.It can be used that way by the intellectually dishonest. :) You'll just have to trust me when I say that such was not my intent. Instead, I wanted to point out only that there would undoubtedly be a number of good points that neither of us would get an opportunity to cover.


Secondly, his premise was wrong about Saddam 'not being a threat'. Our president stated time and again we must act against Iraq "BEFORE" they become a threat.
That would've been a legitimate strike against me only if Sir Evil had actually brought up that point and I didn't counter it somehow. Just as there's a right and wrong way to debate formally, there's also a right and wrong way to judge a formal debate.

[typomaniac]

?????

I'm talking about it being a good debate, and how you made for a good opponent as there is little to no chance of decent debate around here, Umm a compliments of sorts but now you come over, and wanna provide holes in my argument?

:laugh2:
Whatever....

Ohhhhhhh... My bad; I totally misread. I thought you were saying that there was little to no chance of making a decent argument about the Iraq war not being justified. Sorry, man.

[SpidermanTUba]

Wow. 70% of this board believes that its good to pick fights.
No wonder you're all so messed up.

[jimnyc]

Wow. 70% of this board believes that its good to pick fights.
No wonder you're all so messed up.

And yet you still remain too stupid to read instructions/rules.

[jimnyc]

SpidermanTuba's reply and mine as well have been cut from the debate and moved to this discussion thread. He apparently was in too much of a rush to tell others how messed up they were to bother reading the rules - which leads me to believe he didn't read the thread - which means he voted without reading.

Now ya'll know why I said the votes don't count for much, because dolt's like him just vote and make comments without bothering to read.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm having trouble deciding. For me, the problem is he sheer volume of data. As each would make points, each would make a line-item address. Therefore I'd have to read through dozens of sub-points to get to the point I thought was strongest. Perhaps we can find a way to make the discussion easier to follow? I get the sense Typo's position was based on "The war based on American Greed" - I think he didn't effectively argue that point. Meanwhile, Evil was trying to counter that argument. The discussion wasn't "Was the War based on American Greed?" - the topic was "Was the war Justified." Seemed to derail a bit for me...so I haven't yet voted.

I was thinking of limiting each response to a certain number of words, it would force self editorializing.

Its simply impossible to read through the entire thing in one setting.

I would say I had at least two major problems with TYPO, one is that he stated something to the effect "maybe its possible the clerks lost the paperwork..."

To try to say a war is not justified based on a "possibility" is beyond a weak way of making an arguement.

The other was about the number of casualties. If there becomes more casualties than if we had simply allowed Saddam to stay in power, then the war wasnt justified.

You cannot in any way shape or form know in advance how many casualties there will be, hence it is an irrelevant point to the topic.

Lastly, his arguement about invading Russia, he was confusing if a war is justified or is it wise.

When Sir evil stated he thought invading Russia would have been justified, its not stating it would have been wise, and Typo countered by stating how foolish it would have been to invade Russia, not that it wouldnt have been justified.

[LuvRPgrl]

Wow. 70% of this board believes that its good to pick fights.
No wonder you're all so messed up.

Actually, its higher now, since I voted.

But I voted on who won the debate, not my preconceived idea of whether it was justified or not. And I gave reasons for my vote.

Now, personally, I read it as 72% of us think its ok to stand up for the little guy.

[Classact]

I post on a couple other sites and I copied a reply to these specific questions and I think they will add my two cents to this debate without giving me typers cramps.

Do you think Bush believed there were no WMDs or should have believed there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion? Explain.[/quote]
No, he and most elected officials reflected publically that Saddam had WMD’s. Most importantly, Saddam provided the list of prohibited WMD’s to the UN as part of the ceasefire agreement following the initial invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War. There were rare politicians that publically stated there were no WMD’s and if memory serves the former UN inspector had lost creditability who stated there was little basis that Saddam had WMD’s. Prior to the current conflict the BA approached Iraqi leader to finally resolve the matter by sending his scientists out of Iraq with their families for interview. Saddam’s response was that, oh, they don’t want to go to a third neutral country for interview. Everyone with honesty will admit that there were hundreds of tons of missing WMD’s in Iraq. Why, because the munitions were listed by Saddam following the ceasefire, he made the list and the destruction of these items was not witnessed by the UN as agreed to by Saddam. Sane objective observers of each side would ask questions, why didn’t Saddam simply live up to the ceasefire agreement in the first six months following the Gulf War? Then he could be free from all UN constraints and if he desired he could rearm with WMD’s. Coupled with the total inability of sane people to ably answer these questions the missing hundreds of tons of WMD’s in question were stated by Saddam to have been destroyed within six months of the Gulf War and he simply forgot to call the UN to witness it. Then, as we all recall the UN inspection team was destroying rockets that were purchased after the ceasefire in direct violation of the UN agreement. During that same period UN inspectors found documents in scientist homes relating to WMD programs. Many scientists refused to be interviewed without witnesses that relayed to the outside world they were under duress of Saddam’s brutal rule.
Assuming they knew there were no WMDs do you still think they would have been justified in going ahead with the invasion? If so, on what basis?
Yes, but the question implies that they knew and I don’t think significant evidence has been shown to so state without being irrefutable that such knowledge existed. Regardless, Saddam could have disarmed within six months following the Gulf War. The Gulf War was caused by Saddam, look at the UN resolutions leading up to the Gulf War the list is a very long list of opportunities for Saddam to resolve the matter peacefully. One must ask why was it in America’s interest to be involved in the Gulf War? If you answer yes, then nothing had changed since the ceasefire, Saddam was still thumbing his nose at the world community. As a result of the Gulf War over 100 US service members lost their lives and many more suffered other damage on the battlefield not to mention the money spent on the Gulf War on our part.
Do you think Bush lied to take us into war? If not, what word would you use. If so, do you think his loss of credibility removes the possibility of success under his leadership? Explain.
I don’t think Bush lied. What word would I use, LEADERSHIP, following 9-11 the American people were bombarded by the 24 hour news cycle and every news outlet instilled fear of our new learned enemy that uses terrorism. There was concern in the American population that these terrorists “might” join with Saddam to fight together the enemy of their enemy, America. If you go back to the lead up of the current Iraq War and investigate House and Senate speeches of both parties and actually read the speeches you will find truth that such a concern existed. The way the volunteer military was set up has much to do with how the nation became involved. The system was purposely set up so the nation could not enter another war similar to Vietnam without the nation being fully involved and informed. This was done by requiring NG and AR to be mobilizes across the nation verses a central army not reflecting a single state, by involving the reserve components early on the nation was awakened to the reality war was on the horizon and they need to feed the congress support or dismay on the idea. Here is a congress under duress in such a situation because Congressmen/women and Senators are voted into office by probably 20% of the eligible voters in a given state but the duress, or fear of the politician is making the wrong decision when 100% of the voting population is awake and aware of possible threats to themselves. If the MA Senator votes No for authorization for war and some WMD’s are delivered over Boston with origin of Iraq the career is ended. Look at his speech, I mean go look it up on CSPAN in the archives and you will see segments that address those who voted him into office and segments that satisfy those who would vote him out of office if the worse occurred. This 80% cover your butt factor was what allowed Senators/Congresspersons to be able to come back later and change their minds when political conditions were safe to do so. If you recall Senator Kerry was so upset by the Reserve Component involvement that he ran on a ticket that would end this practice if he were elected. There is a big difference between sending a central Army and sending a central Army and neighborhood Reserve Components, when you send RC’s everyone has a dog in the fight and everyone is awake and ready to vote one way or the other on war support.

Bush may have lost creditability but this has nothing to do with success in Iraq under his leadership or under President Clinton. They both are presented with the exact same chess board and they must move the pieces accordingly. We are on the verge of a very widespread war and there is no way to sneak out the back Jack when it comes to Iraq. There is the problem with Iran, Turkey, Syria and Lebanon and the outside forces determine your moves at this point including Russia and China. President Clinton Iraq and Bush Iraq will look like Iraq and no we won’t slip out the back Jack we will stick it out until Checkmate.

[actsnoblemartin]

why is this so hard for some people to understand. Iraq's dictator signed a treaty after the first war, saying I wont do X Y & Z, once he broke the treaty, we had every justification to go into their

case closed.

[LuvRPgrl]

why is this so hard for some people to understand. Iraq's dictator signed a treaty after the first war, saying I wont do X Y & Z, once he broke the treaty, we had every justification to go into their

case closed.
bingo!!

[retiredman]

invasion based upon technically legal justification does not equate to wisdom or the correct prioritization of threats.

Iraq was NOT a threat. Al Qaeda was - and IS. While we have flushed more than half a trillion dollars down the toilet in Iraq - along with suffering 32K causalties - AQ is just as strong as it was the day it attacked us.

[Kathianne]

invasion based upon technically legal justification does not equate to wisdom or the correct prioritization of threats.

Iraq was NOT a threat. Al Qaeda was - and IS. While we have flushed more than half a trillion dollars down the toilet in Iraq - along with suffering 32K causalties - AQ is just as strong as it was the day it attacked us.

No it's not and you know it. Yes, Binny may or may not be alive, but is a much reduced threat, as are his minions.

[retiredman]

no...honestly, I do not know that. I find it quite easy to believe that AQ continues to evolve and is as capable as it ever was.

our intelligence community thinks so.

[Gaffer]

no...honestly, I do not know that. I find it quite easy to believe that AQ continues to evolve and is as capable as it ever was.

our intelligence community thinks so.

Is that the same intelligence community that said saddam had WMD's.

A quote from a Marine in Fallujah said it best. " We need to go somewhere else, there's no one left here to shoot at." Things have turned around in iraq. al qaeda is defeated there and will be cleaned out entirely soon. Then the iranians will be the only ones left to deal with. al qaeda is making some changes now too. They are cutting their losses there and concentrating on pakistan. Watch things in that country erupt big time.

You can tell things are going well in iraq by the lack of reporting coming out of there. If its not bad news it doesn't get reported.

[glockmail]

My reason for voting for Sir Evil are because he stated facts while Typo responded with emotion and obscure reference. Here's a typical example.

[Sir Evil]
Iraq has an abundance of oil and prior to the removal of Saddam it was used primarily for himself and his regime to live a life of luxury while his citizens suffered and didn't see any relief at all as a result of the money Iraq made from their oil. The USA is actively involved in rebuilding pipelines and refineries and rightfully so should be paid for their efforts.

[Typo]
I don’t see any logical difference between that argument and the one used by Spain as an excuse to plunder the Aztec and Inca treasures in the 14th century. The comments above seem like an attempt by my opponent to shed a softer light on raw greed as a motivation for Iraq’s invasion.

Evil also had more links to back up his facts. Nice job, Evil.
My reason for voting for Sir Evil are because he stated facts while Typo responded with emotion and obscure reference. Here's a typical example.

[Sir Evil]
Iraq has an abundance of oil and prior to the removal of Saddam it was used primarily for himself and his regime to live a life of luxury while his citizens suffered and didn't see any relief at all as a result of the money Iraq made from their oil. The USA is actively involved in rebuilding pipelines and refineries and rightfully so should be paid for their efforts.

[Typo]
I don’t see any logical difference between that argument and the one used by Spain as an excuse to plunder the Aztec and Inca treasures in the 14th century. The comments above seem like an attempt by my opponent to shed a softer light on raw greed as a motivation for Iraq’s invasion.

Evil also had more links to back up his facts. Nice job, Evil.

[glockmail]

invasion based upon technically legal justification does not equate to wisdom or the correct prioritization of threats.

Iraq was NOT a threat. Al Qaeda was - and IS. While we have flushed more than half a trillion dollars down the toilet in Iraq - along with suffering 32K causalties - AQ is just as strong as it was the day it attacked us.

AQ was being supported by Saddam.

[typomaniac]

Sir Evil and I both stated facts, and we both got emotional. It would be easy to cherry-pick, but I won't. Nor am I going to take the cynical route and try to claim that each camp just voted on their own preconceptions. Perhaps they did, but I'll give us all the benefit of the doubt.

What the discussion seems to be boiling down to - in my opinion, of course - is what actually constitutes "justification" for going to war. Unfortunately that's an entirely subjective question.

My own belief is that a single American life is far more valuable than any other human life: at least when it comes to setting American foreign and defense policies. Therefore, I tried to construct my arguments in light of that belief. On the other hand, it seems to me that Sir Evil (along with many others) believes that sacrificing large numbers of American lives for humanitarian missions serving non-Americans is totally acceptable. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree: playing fast and loose with the lives of our troops always results in bad policy.

[glockmail]

Sir Evil and I both stated facts, and we both got emotional. It would be easy to cherry-pick, but I won't. Nor am I going to take the cynical route and try to claim that each camp just voted on their own preconceptions. Perhaps they did, but I'll give us all the benefit of the doubt.

What the discussion seems to be boiling down to - in my opinion, of course - is what actually constitutes "justification" for going to war. Unfortunately that's an entirely subjective question.

My own belief is that a single American life is far more valuable than any other human life: at least when it comes to setting American foreign and defense policies. Therefore, I tried to construct my arguments in light of that belief. On the other hand, it seems to me that Sir Evil (along with many others) believes that sacrificing large numbers of American lives for humanitarian missions serving non-Americans is totally acceptable. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree: playing fast and loose with the lives of our troops always results in bad policy.

Not the way I read it. Your argument, second bolded text, is another example of using emotion to bolster your position.

Americans thought this way prior to WW2 and it cost us many more casualties later because we waited so long to get involved. Not to mention the 6 million Jews that Hitler murdered.

You seem to forget that 9/10 was different than 9/12. Just like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 changed everything.

[manu1959]

the justification was saddam's violation of the terms of the cease fire of gulf I for about 12 years running......

the reality was....the invasion was not necessary......

the reality is.....we are there now....you break it you fix it.....

[Kathianne]

no...honestly, I do not know that. I find it quite easy to believe that AQ continues to evolve and is as capable as it ever was.

our intelligence community thinks so.

You could be right on the 'know' part, but even Binny seems to think they have a big problem, at least in Iraq:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/561695F6-E99B-4AB2-A56D-949D764076CE.htm



MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007
21:18 MECCA TIME, 18:18 GMT
Bin Laden issues Iraq message

The tape was titled
A Message to the People of Iraq

Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, has released a new audiotape calling on fighters in Iraq to unite and stand shoulder to shoulder.

In the tape broadcast by Al Jazeera on Monday, a voice sounding like bin Laden admitted that mistakes had been made in Iraq and exhorted the fighters to rectify them.

"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said. "Beware of division... The Muslim world is waiting for you to gather under one banner."...

[glockmail]

You could be right on the 'know' part, but even Binny seems to think they have a big problem, at least in Iraq:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/561695F6-E99B-4AB2-A56D-949D764076CE.htm

This is where someone turns on a recording of Frank Sinatra singing: "And now, the end is near...":coffee:

[typomaniac]

Not the way I read it. Your argument, second bolded text, is another example of using emotion to bolster your position.
Not really, glock. The bolded text isn't meant to be an argument at all. It's just my opinion, nothing more. I can't (and won't) pretend that it's a fact.
Americans thought this way prior to WW2 and it cost us many more casualties later because we waited so long to get involved. Not to mention the 6 million Jews that Hitler murdered.Do you mean to say that, had the US declared war on Germany in 1939, it would have cost fewer American lives? What in the heck to you base that on?
You seem to forget that 9/10 was different than 9/12. Just like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 changed everything.It changed quite a bit. However, 9/11 is not a perfect parallel with Pearl Harbor, and most people know it. There is a tremendous difference between a military strike and a criminal act of terror.

[glockmail]

Not really, glock. The bolded text isn't meant to be an argument at all. It's just my opinion, nothing more. I can't (and won't) pretend that it's a fact.....


ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈär-gyə-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
Date: 14th century
1obsolete : an outward sign : indication
2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade
3 a: the act or process of arguing : argumentation b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c: quarrel, disagreement
4: an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5: the subject matter especially of a literary work

[typomaniac]

ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈär-gyə-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
Date: 14th century
1obsolete : an outward sign : indication
2 a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade
3 a: the act or process of arguing : argumentation b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c: quarrel, disagreement
4: an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5: the subject matter especially of a literary work

What was your point supposed to be? I already told you that the quote from post 38 was not intended to prove or rebut anything.

[glockmail]

What was your point supposed to be? I already told you that the quote from post 38 was not intended to prove or rebut anything.

Of course not. You just:
1. Stated your opinion, then
2. attempted to justify it.

Why would any rational person think that you were making an argument? :cool:

[typomaniac]

Of course not. You just:
1. Stated your opinion, then
2. attempted to justify it.

Why would any rational person think that you were making an argument? :cool:

You don't justify opinions; you justify actions. I really don't care whether you agree with my opinion or not.
:smoke:

[glockmail]

You don't justify opinions; you justify actions. I really don't care whether you agree with my opinion or not.
:smoke:


1. I proved your argument to be unjustified.
2. You responded by claiming that you weren't presenting an argument.
3. I then proved that you were.
4. Now you claim that you don't care if I agree with your opinion.

Perhaps you have let your hatred toward me cloud your judgement.

[typomaniac]

1. I proved your argument to be unjustified.
2. You responded by claiming that you weren't presenting an argument.
3. I then proved that you were.
4. Now you claim that you don't care if I agree with your opinion.

Perhaps you have let your hatred toward me cloud your judgement.

Compare the following with the earlier definition of "argument:"

o·pin·ion Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

[glockmail]

Compare the following with the earlier definition of "argument:"

o·pin·ion Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

You tried to justify your opinion with an argument.

[manu1959]

You tried to justify your opinion with an argument.

isn't that what you are attempting to do at the moment?.....thought not....

[glockmail]

isn't that what you are attempting to do at the moment?.....thought not....
?

[shwayze]

Well done to both participants. That was a very thorough and intelligent debate. Thank you both for enhancing my knowledge. I read the entire thing and would have to say that Sir Evil won the debate. I think it was evident that SE won when Typo had no legitimate responses to his statements and started completely going off topic (hospitals in Indonesia for example). I think the Zarqawi (spelling?) point was very strong in SE's argument. Sorry if this sounds like a love affair, but SE, that was absolutely remarkable. You are an extremely intelligent mind.

[typomaniac]

Well done to both participants. That was a very thorough and intelligent debate. Thank you both for enhancing my knowledge. I read the entire thing and would have to say that Sir Evil won the debate. I think it was evident that SE won when Typo had no legitimate responses to his statements and started completely going off topic (hospitals in Indonesia for example). I think the Zarqawi (spelling?) point was very strong in SE's argument. Sorry if this sounds like a love affair, but SE, that was absolutely remarkable. You are an extremely intelligent mind.

No need to apologize. If I'd known that we'd be cut off before the 10 promised posts (and that I should have posted my responses more quickly), I would have organized my posts a lot better. Oh well...

[glockmail]

No need to apologize. If I'd known that we'd be cut off before the 10 promised posts (and that I should have posted my responses more quickly), I would have organized my posts a lot better. Oh well...:lame2:

[typomaniac]

:lame2:
What happened to :pee:?

[mrg666]

What happened to :pee:?

he probably thought it would shut you up
unfortunately he was wrong :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

he probably thought it would shut you up
unfortunately he was wrong :laugh2:

It's a shame that I had to waste 3 seconds of my life reading that crap. :lol: