quote:Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
Cool... a debate!!! The only problem I have with PBA is the massive amounts of posts he does... but dang it, I agree with a lot of what he says!!!!
I also dont like the "left wing", "right wing", "liberal", "conservative" and whatever else is thrown in there.
Other than that... PBA does bring up some good points!
Right, pba brings in an article, generally one that is a report of an event or statement. You and I and the rest of us get to agree, or disagree. No debate, just a discussion of current events. A DEBATE REQUIRES AN ASSERTION. The War in Iraq is ILLEGAL. Pro or Con. The war in Iraq is IMMORAL. Pro or Con. The war in Iraq is FATTENING. Pro or Con.
To debate any one of those assertions requires bringing up facts, finding expert or recognized expert testimony on LAW, MORALITY, OR CALORIE CONTENT.
On the side that argues pro, the facts and experts have to provide evidence it is Illegal, Immoral, or High in Calories. On the Con Side, the debator has to provide evidence of the Legality, Morality and Lack of Caloric Content.
It is hard work, and in this format generally not a debate but a pressentation, for judgement, of one or another set of facts and opinons.
Best Example, THE WAR IN IRAQ IS ILLEGAL. Pro, Cofi Annon, Secretary General of the United Nations says there was no authority for the USA to invade the country. The UN charter says no invasion of a sovereigh nation is permitted without UN approval, except in the event of an immenent threat. The United States, as a signatory of the UN Charter is bound by its provisions. The United States Constitution requires the United States to "enforce the law of Nations."
Against this, Cofi Anon is not allowed to speak for the UN without a resolution from the General Assembly or the Security Council. No resolution declearing the invasion of Iraq has been passed. Anon is not speaking on authority of the UN. The UN authorized the Use of Force to disarm Iraq. Therefore, the invasion is Legal.
Counter, Cofi Anon is a recognized expert in international law in his own right and does not need the approval of the UN to make an opinion of law, though without a UN resolution it is not binding. The Iraq government was in compliance with the Disarmarmement regime, by hosting inspectors. They had acquiesed to the use of force resolution. Therefore it did not apply, and the remaining arguments that the war is illegal are also restored.
And so on, till all the arguments, facts and experts are heard from.
This is not any fun. It is a lot more exciting to kick sand and say nUhhhhNuahhh to any opposition. Participate in the debate, seej support for the legality of the way, and perhaps, heaven forbid, possiblyl, FIND OUT THE WAR IN IRAQ IS ILLEGAL, AND HAVE TO STOP CHEERLEADING FOR IT.
