Staredit Network

In addition, many of the formal debate rules are simply wrong.

Debate class was painful.

That logic flunks in itself. You're just 'admitting' that the U.S. went to war with the oil as their main goal and not really as the 'democracy spreader' some stated (U.S. admin', for one). This just made my day brighter...



And looks who's not telling everyone else how to behave... Start by giving a good and clear example, it's my dare to ya here.

I do criticize. Trying to push others (including opponents) to try their best is a good goal for debates, is it not?
Of which, in your particular case, it simply doesn't happen. You didn't give me any thrust to counter anything in specific of the dabated topic so far.

Basan in an earlier post you/some one requested for me to supply proof, THATS why I did supply proof. Now I get critisized for it just becuase you don't like it? Man......its a hard knock life....

Also you mentioned about people here being bias. Let me tell you that EVERY ONE here including you is bais. It is nearly impossible not to be bais. So let me a sure you that you are bias by countering my statements as well as me being bias toward you in writing this post.

Do I need say more? (Please, look below.)


And what you've done for folks in Iraq (other than the Saddam detroning)? I do 'failed' to see the other reasons Bush stated so far (WMD's for one)...



I can agree (and somewhat relate) with that. But for starters you (namely, the U.S. admin') should go after the real culprit (aka Saudi Arabia)? Afterall, they're even considered your allies.



That all capitalized text below lead me to it... am I to blame?

Funny, I never thought of SD as a few couple of (opinion) liners 'arena'. Even still you've played that role...

I do not presume to be better than anyone else around, but that sometimes, imho, some of you need that 'extra push' (as in, asking for reliable sources for one) that's almost assured.
And if I really thought that (aura thingy), I wouldn't even drop by to post so ya know.
(For instance, that explains my long term absence - more like eternal - from the BF's SD area.)



Not that I don't like it... Instaed it didn't supply any single shred of concrete evidence that I could see, other than the authors PoV's (and not in a very journalistic manner, imo). As you can see most of my links are drawn from more acknowledgable News media sites over the Net.

And perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough when adressed to Absolute...

We all have/form our own opinions and are biased from the get go. The only unbiased source I can think of now in current times would be a successfully unfrozen Neandertal specimen.
The 'real trick' where I'm trying to get in here is that you must see most of the sources, from different PoV's (either environmental, economic political, etc. etc.) and only then schem your stance upon that issue aftwards. That and revising your PoV's when some evidence shows that you're wrong... even if it's in a small extent.
If ain't quite correct I'll give the hand to it, which wasn't the case yet. It's up to you to concede or not. I do know when am wrong and grant the other fella being the more accurate one.

See my own words at other site when acknowledging that was somewhat wrong as merely an example of some sort if ya want.

(Example source and my response from other site's SD area.)

Well, they happily OKed the constitution yesterday.

They will certainly be better off than under the torturous (literally) dictator.

exactly

quoted from this very funny comedian, Menica or something well he was in the street with a mega phone and I cracked up laughing


Yes it is very hard to get a job at the moment, and its really always been hard to, if you want to get a good job then there will always be compitetion.

I didn't get hired at my local Basken Robins becuase the stupid asian manager in his scattered english stated to me:



Are you kidding me? That dude has nothing to do with Bush but for some reason I kind get hired...................

That's one step forward (to democracy), no doubt.
And yesterday (or today) the Saddam trial beggins... I'm only saddened that the only charge will be the one of when he executed some villagers (after an attack to his caravan when he was passing by and not being able to find the real culprits to the attack).
Edit add: They've found so many more burrial ditches by now, that he could be prosecuted for a hell lot more crimes against the humanity than he's currently. *Hopes that he gets an heavy penalty none the less*

I really don't get why people doubt debate rules, or refus to follow them Debate rules are not for formal debate, they are serious logical ideas showing how one should prove his point. If you are trying to prove something, you need to follow most of these logical rules and avoid fallacies. These rules are not rules that apply only to formal debates.

It seems atht am being somewaht ignored here... since no one cared to reply to my wordings. Oh well... no biggie.



Pardon my curiosity but to whom are you adressing to? It would be far easier to reply, imho, if you named the one or quoted the part you're exactly replying to.

Thats odd... I was replying to Swap's earlier post... Somehow it got delayed.