Printable View
As 88mph would say:Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
"So has everything. Welcome to the internet."
I see you're incapable of arguing even your own points of view. Tough luck. I've offered up plenty to discuss, you just don't seem to be able to do so in a collected manner. Even when I present information with a level of quasi-respect, which is more than you deserve right now, you don't want to explain yourself. Come on, be like your hero Carter and argue. That's what makes this fun.
SC
Which says what about the fact that you're offering nothing new? Do you want a cookie for rehashing old information or something? yippee for you?
Are we going to close this thread soon?
SC
"I've offered up plenty to discuss"
No, you haven't. I suggest you take some debate/speech classes. Please point to this post of yours so I can tear it (or you) apart.
How old are you? I really want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
SC
I see he left. Heh. No, a debate does not consist of an article you can find on Google. You have to make an ARGUMENT. So far, all I have seen is why you think Sharon is worse and posted information, to which I had already said I don't think so based on what is happening now. We won't see eye to eye here, so what is your problem, SC?
Eegads man, debate is arguing one viewpoint against another by using factual information as background. Hence, the history lesson. I've explained, in full detail with historical precedence, for why I think Sharon is worse than Arafat. You have not. So you're right, this isn't debate. It requires two people and looking back, only one of us has made any significant attempt to discuss this. And explain to me how the info I posted isn't relevant? I thought the topic was about Sharon vs. Arafat as a terrorist. My post points out all the stuff relating Sharon to terrorism so how is it not relevant? I know we won't see eye to eye, but that's what makes TNL debates enjoyable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
SC
"Eegads man, debate is arguing one viewpoint against another by using factual information as background. Hence, the history lesson. I've explained, in full detail with historical precedence, for why I think Sharon is worse than Arafat."
Yes, that is debate. And I have explained why I think Arafat is worse.
"And explain to me how the info I posted isn't relevant? I thought the topic was about Sharon vs. Arafat as a terrorist. My post points out all the stuff relating Sharon to terrorism so how is it not relevant?"
I didn't dismiss it as irrelevant. Maybe you need some comprehension skills?
We've both said our piece on why we think so and so is worse. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DISCUSS ON THAT MATTER...yet you keep saying "bring something useful to the discussion"
No you haven't and I want to know why. Pretend I just popped in on this and explain why so I can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBVila
Ok my bad. I thought you had posted that all that was in the past and didn't apply to what's happening now. Perhaps I misunderstood.Quote:
I didn't dismiss it as irrelevant. Maybe you need some comprehension skills?
SC
"As for me, Israel seems to have a better idea of where violent Hamas members are than Arafat does. Do you actually believe that? If you're in power and aren't taking action, that makes you guilty. That's the way this world works."
Furthermore, you're the one wanting to claim things as irrelevant.("Whether Arafat has terrorists connections is irrelevant. He's not the one with nuclear weapons and U.S. backing.") Anyone deliberately not taking action against terrorists under their "control" qualifies as a terrorist in MY book (maybe not yours). The fact that someone DOES have nukes doesn't bother me as much as the person behind it. No, I don't think Sharon is a good guy, but I trust him with nukes more than I trust Arafat with his current methods. Easy for me to say halfway around the world, but you're no different.