The Instigator
righty10294
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
hattopic
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

We should to war with Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,928 times Debate No: 1944
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (10)

 

righty10294

Pro

Hello,

IN your comment, it sounded like you wanted this debate. From the looks of the girl's first argument, I wished you had it. SO we'll restart with my first argument. Voters, check out http://www.debate.org... to find out what I'm talking about.

I've become interested in this topic since the most recent boat incident last week. Clearly Iran has been testing us to see what we're capable of.

Reasons to go to war-

1)Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran) wants to kill Israelis/Jewish.
How do the Israelis feel about this. He said in a speech "Death to Israel" What does the threat he pose to that country. It is one of our biggest ally and we should make sure that they are safe. Also, he called the Holocaust a "myth". We all no that this is untrue. Who says that he won't start another Holocaust to kill the Jewish again.
http://www.youtube.com......

2)He has testes the US and UK.
Many people aren't taking this most recent "attack" on The US Navy serious. The speed boats surrounded the fleet and said we'll blow up. The group of people on the speed boats were believed to be apart of the Revoultoinary Guard, which is a UN labeled terrorist group. The Iranian government said that they were only identifying the ships. IT was more of a threat rather than just identifying who they were. The ships by UN law are allowed to past threw the territory they were in, so Iran was out of its waters. Also, another incident came out that in December of '07 a Iranian boat was approaching a US warship, and when the ship fired off warning shots, it retreated.
Many people have forgotten about the 2007 incident, where the Iranian took 15 hostages of the Royal Navy. The sailors were aboard the HMS Cornwall. Iran's government said that they were in Iranian waters, but they were proved to be in Iraqi waters. Iran knew this too. Then after it was proved that they were in Iraqi waters, they released them without a statement. They got scared.
Also, there was another incident in 2004 when IRan seized 8 royal sailors. THey were again in Iraqi waters, but Iran doesn't believe that.

3)The threat of nuclear bombs
Although there is no proof, Iran says they don't have nuclear bombs. They are trying though. In an interview with 60 minutes in 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, couldn't answer the question "do you have nuclear bombs". He was stumbling and going off topic. Also, when there are anti-aircraft artillery guarding your one of your nuclear facility, that's a little strange (http://en.wikipedia.org...... click here to see). I live next to a nuclear powerplant, and there are no guns of this kinds. Once in while there will be a lone guy watching cars. If they were to get a hold of a nuclear bomb, it my not be able to reach the US, but what about if they sold it to a terrorist to smuggle it in, or they bomb Bagdahd where our soldiers are. It is dangerous.

My last point is, if we invaded Iran, took over the government, and made it a constitutional republic, we would have a leader of that country who is friendly with us, and try to bring the gas prices down.
hattopic

Con

I do want to debate this topic, so I've gladly accepted your challenge.
I suppose I'll start out by rebutting your arguments:

1) "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran) wants to kill Israelis/Jewish."

Well first off, I'm not even sure that's true. I tried to follow your link, but it just led me to Youtube, not a specific video. Anyways, I'd hardly call Isreal one of our biggest allies. And as for Ahmadinejad calling the holocaust a myth, that's completely non-topical, and doesn't really deserve a response.

"Who says that he won't start another Holocaust to kill the Jewish again."

What? That's hardly an argument to go to war. Who's to say that the British PM won't start another holocaust, or Germany's chancellor, or even our own leaders. A hypothetical situation is hardly a reason to go to war.

2) "He has testes the US and UK."

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but you probably meant tested, so I'll respond to that.

First off, I don't think that you've proven that Iran has tested us really. You bring up the boat incident, but have you looked in on it recently? The incident was not only a standard occurrence, but much of the story was over hyped, indeed, some of it was flat out made up. (1) And once again, this is not a reason to go to war. Potentially unarmed Iranian speed boats taunting US ships? Not sure where war comes into play.

3) "The threat of nuclear bombs"

"Although there is no proof, Iran says they don't have nuclear bombs."

You admit yourself that there's no evidence to support that claim.

"Also, when there are anti-aircraft artillery guarding your one of your nuclear facility, that's a little strange"

You have no citation, when I tried to follow your link, it took me to the home page of Wikipedia.

"I live next to a nuclear power plant, and there are no guns of this kinds. Once in while there will be a lone guy watching cars"

Anecdotal evidence isn't valid, that doesn't support you at all.

So, you claim that it's possible that Iran may have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, and you admit that there's no evidence to support that. Once again, not a reason to go to war. But let's say that you're right, even if they did have a weapon, you admit they don't have the capability to launch it at the US. And then you go on to say that they could give it to terrorists? You don't provide any logical link from Iran to terrorists, you can't just jump like that without supporting your claims.

"My last point is, if we invaded Iran, took over the government, and made it a constitutional republic, we would have a leader of that country who is friendly with us, and try to bring the gas prices down"

Not entirely sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Say we did manage to invade Iran, and set up a constitutional republic, why would they vote a leader in who's friendly toward us? The people of Iran didn't want us in their country, would they elect a leader who wanted us there? And even if we did have a friendly leader in place, he wouldn't be able to do anything about oil prices. Oil prices aren't controlled by individual countries, the oil supply from the middle east is regulated by OPEC, they decide what to sell oil at, not the individual countries.

Now for my arguments:

1) Not enough troops. We don't have enough troops to fight the war we're in right now. (2) If we tried to wage two wars at once, our military would be stretched passed the breaking point.

2) Cost to the US. Our economy is close to a recession (3), spending money attacking and then rebuilding another country is the last thing we need.

3) Lack of US soft power. The world doesn't support us in the Iraq war, in a poll conducted in January 2007 around the world 73% of the people polled, thought the US was handling the Iraq war badly. (4)

That's all I'll advance for now, I'll decide whether I need more arguments later.

So far you've provided me with no reasons to go to war with Iran. You have no evidence, and your arguments are based on hypothetical situations, not facts. Still, I look forward to hearing from you.

-Matt

(1a) http://www.newsday.com...
(1b) http://www.workers.org...
(2) http://www.rand.org...
(3) http://news.theage.com.au...
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
righty10294

Pro

Hello

I'm sorry about the link, it worked for the other debate, here it is again it should work.

Here is my point about Israel, Israel has nuclear warheads, and with President Ahmadinejad saying "death to Israel", how do you know he won't invade. It sounds like he is another Hitler who wants to start another Holocaust.

"Who's to say that the British PM won't start another holocaust, or Germany's chancellor, or even our own leaders. A hypothetical situation is hardly a reason to go to war."

Yes, it would be a good reason to go to war, if something like that ever happened (there is always a chance with Iran). The difference between President Ahmadinejad and Prime Minester Brown or Chancellor Merkel is that they have never said "death to Israel" in a speech or what not. I think he is a serious threat to Israel and the Jewish religion.

"First off, I don't think that you've proven that Iran has tested us really. You bring up the boat incident, but have you looked in on it recently? The incident was not only a standard occurrence, but much of the story was over hyped, indeed, some of it was flat out made up. (1) And once again, this is not a reason to go to war. Potentially unarmed Iranian speed boats taunting US ships? Not sure where war comes into play."

Do you know what happen? When there are boats from a Middle Eastern country coming at you, while they were out of their waters, and saying we will explode, that isn't a threat!?!? If that isn't, then explain a threat that could happen. With the articles you gave for (1), one of them is just letters, that you don't know are true and you could have said something to make my argument look bad. Number 1b I'm not even going to waste my time reading that, because that is the same people who say Fox News won President Bush the election, President Bush was in charge of 9/11. It is just depressed liberals with too much time trying to make our president look bad. Until that makes it to CNN or MSNBC (Fox news knows that's fake) I'll take it into consideration. War comes into play, when they are threatening an explosion/attack, I couldn't see that being much clearer. How do you know they were unarmed, we don't know if they were or weren't, so we have to take them by their word and say they do.

""Although there is no proof, Iran says they don't have nuclear bombs."
You admit yourself that there's no evidence to support that claim."

Yes I do admit that there is no evidence to support this claim. I see how you can make the mistake, but I'm saying that we can't prove that Iran has no nuclear warheads, so we should be safe rather than sorry.

Here the wiki link, I don't know how that happened again leave a comment if it doesn't work, so i can try to give it to you before your next argument- http://en.wikipedia.org...

"you claim that it's possible that Iran may have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, and you admit that there's no evidence to support that"

We know nothing about their nuclear program. There is no evidence for either side.

"not a reason to go to war"

Just one response, if we get a hold of a tiny bit of info and it doesn't have to be about nuclear bombs, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

"then you go on to say that they could give it to terrorists? You don't provide any logical link from Iran to terrorists"

Iran has been linked to terrorist many of times.
Here are some articles-
1)http://www.time.com...
2)http://www.csmonitor.com...
3)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
4)http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

If that isn't good enough, i don't know what is.

"Not enough troops. We don't have enough troops to fight the war we're in right now. (2) If we tried to wage two wars at once, our military would be stretched passed the breaking point."

Alright -1)Where's your proof we don't have enough troops? Lets just say we do, would you go and fight in the war? You're 17, you have to go and sign up for the draft next year. It is the people who are afraid of war. The selfish liberals (don't get me wrong, there are Conservatives that will go under this category, but most are dems.) who only think of them selves that won't fight. That is how we won the Revolutionary War, Civil, and WWII wars. Then, the young men were just itching to fight, and knew they had to to protect their country. Everyone should think of their country first, not what's best for you.
Also, the draft would work too.
2)We are waging 2 wars right now. We're doing fine. I think Afghanistan could end within months, if we find Bin Laden. Then, all the pieces will fall into place, and we can send soldiers home, but Iraq is different.

"Lack of US soft power. The world doesn't support us in the Iraq war, in a poll conducted in January 2007 around the world 73% of the people polled, thought the US was handling the Iraq war badly"

So? Is Iraq the same as Iran. That poll was conducted before the surge. Now, even the people who said it would never work *cough cough* democrats (Harry Reid) are even saying it works. General Petraeus has done an excellent job since then, and he should have won Time Magazine's Person of the year. I want to see a poll that was conducted within 3 months. Also, we can consider FRance an ally, because of the new Pro-American president and mumbles of France starting a war with Iran. Also, we would get help from our biggest allies like, POland Israel, UK, Australia, Georgia, and so on and so forth.
hattopic

Con

hattopic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
righty10294

Pro

I understand. I thought you had till 4:30ish, becuase I checked it. I hear there are some timer issues, so I'll leave you with your next argument, to make sure no one has an advantage.
hattopic

Con

First off, thanks for not posting last round and keeping the debate on even footing, now then:

It seems to me that your arguments are based mainly on the principle that "It's better to be safe than sorry". I'd agree with you in a lot of cases. I'd rather have an umbrella in my car then be caught in the rain. I'd rather take my phone charger with me overnight then run out of batteries. However when it comes to a war with Iran, the "better safe than sorry" principle doesn't hold weight. And here's why:

The principle is based on the fact that the action's possible benefit outweighs the inconvenience, or the possibility that the event will never occur. In the umbrella example, there's very little inconvenience to throwing an umbrella in the car, especially considering that it could avert getting your clothes wet.

However in the case of war with Iran that doesn't hold true. The action wouldn't necessarily avert the use of a nuclear threat, the action's drawbacks (thousands of American lives lost, economic recession, massive job loss), and you've admitted that there's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons.

But even if we assume that the principle holds true, (which I most certainly don't, but for arguments sake) then we'd have to apply that principle to the rest of the world. It's just as likely that we face threats from all over the globe. Based on "the better safe than sorry" principle when it comes to war and safety, we would have to go to war with world. China has nuclear capabilities, how can we trust them? Maybe we should launch a few nukes at 'em because we can't be sure they won't do the same to us. What about Russia? Maybe we should hit them before they can hit us. The point is, once the theory is applied to one country, it has to be applied to the whole world.

As for your link between Iran and terrorism: You don't seem to distinguish the Iranian government, or it's people from terrorists. I noticed in one of the articles you'd posted, the story was about how Iran was holding terrorist leaders as prisoners. I fail to see the problem there. The rest of your evidence: Well, I'm not going to bother debating whether or not Iran contains terrorists, because it's true, so does every other country in the world. Yes, some people in the Iranian government have turned a blind eye to terrorism in their country, but I fail to see why that should cause an entire nations worth of people to suffer the horrors of war on their own soil. Look at what's happened to Iraq, life there isn't better for the Iraqi people, they don't want us in their country. (1)

The boat incident: It seems that you rejected my evidence, because you liked you liked your own version of events better. However, you asked for a more reputable source and I provide it. According to the BBC, the incident is more complicated then the US is making it out to be. Apparently, the recordings could have been very easily doctored, as well as the story the US is telling. (2)

Troop levels: Where's my evidence? Did you not read the evidence I provided? I definitely linked to an article that said something to that effect.

The surge: Effective? Possibly, if you hand pick your facts. Read this article (3)

You proclaim that:

"We are waging 2 wars right now. We're doing fine. I think Afghanistan could end within months, if we find Bin Laden. Then, all the pieces will fall into place, and we can send soldiers home, but Iraq is different."

Unfortunately your opinion is hardly evidence that can be used in a debate. If you'd like to back that assertion up with facts, I'll be glad to take a look at it.

The draft?: I don't see where this comes into play at all. I'm can't say I'm afraid of fighting, as you imply, if America was waging a just war, then I'd be first in line to sign up. If this were 1941, I wouldn't need my draft number called. If there were a war being fought on American soil, I'd join up. But right now, we aren't fighting a just war in my eyes, and if the draft was instated, I don't know what I'd do. If "young men were itching to fight" in previous wars we wouldn't need a draft. And how did we win the Vietnam war? Was it with the draft? Because I know the draft was in effect during that war, I just can't seem to recall whether or not we won it... You get my point.

And you fail to address my economic argument, so I'll assume you concede the point.

I think that's everything, I'm tired, and I'm not sure if that was entirely coherent, but I'll cross my fingers.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

-Matt

1. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
3. http://www.chicagotribune.com...
Debate Round No. 3
righty10294

Pro

Hello

With may "we should be safe rather than sorry" plan, I don't think I explained it enough. If we get evidence that Iran has any form of nuclear capibilty, we should invade. If they are contusily feeding Taliban an Al Qaeda, we should put sanctions on them. If they contunie, which I ecpect them to do, we should invade. Though, they would have to have a big effect on the terrorist.

"you've admitted that there's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons."

Yes, this statement is totally true, but you have tooken it way out of context. I said it before, and I'll say it again there is no evidence they do or do not have nuclear weapons. Onc again, we must take any evidence seriously, we would rather be safe than sorry.

This theory can not be aplied to the whole world because other than [maybe] Russia (I heard they're feeding the Iranians) no other country is feeding terrorism. Also, I never said this policy should be applied world wide.

"Iran was holding terrorist leaders as prisoners. I fail to see the problem there"

The problem is that we don't have them. We are the people dealing with them, not Iran.These people should be turned over to us. These people will then be sent on a vacation to Gutanamo Bay, where we can find out knew information. The only thing that matters is that these people are in the custady of us our our allys'.

I am not going to answer your argument to the boat incedent. Your article is from a foreign country, and the information in the articlen never made it to the news here, so is it really true?

"we aren't fighting a just war in my eyes" and "if America was waging a just war"

I believe that was a shot at our soliders. We ARE fighting a war today. Monday, 5 soldiers died in a road side bomb, and now you say that we aren't fighting a war is just wrong. We must let our brothers and sisters not die in vain.

"And how did we win the Vietnam war?"

To say we won the Vietnam war is opinion. That depends on who ou ask. There is one fact though, the anti-war protester liberals cost us the Vietnam War, because we would have won if they hadn't pushed for retreat.

Now, our econamy, we really aren't sure if we are going into reccsision. It all depends on who you ask. Sure it would cost money, but this time we will be more careful on where we spend it, and if we cut spending on other items, and move that maoney to the war, it will help (e.i. bear DNA testing).

Lastly, WE CAN NOT PUT A LIMIT ON HOW MUCH MONEY TO SPEND GOR OUR SAFETY, IT IS WRONG.

Sorry for the mistakes, I have to get off immidetly.
hattopic

Con

I'm at a debate tournament this weekend, and I have to get up ridiculously early tomorrow, so I'm not going to do a very in depth argument.

1. Better safe then sorry.

I've addressed it over and over. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest Iran has nuclear capabilities. You admit it, and yet you continue to try and argue the point. Just let it go. (Oh and stop using personal opinions to back up your arguments.
"If they contunie, which I ecpect them to do, we should invade. Though, they would have to have a big effect on the terrorist." It doesn't matter what you think, that has no impact on the debate.)

AND, even if they did the likelihood that they would they would employ a nuclear device against the US is really amazingly low. Since the invention of the nuclear bomb in the '40s, only once has one country attacked another with a nuclear weapon. Think about it for a second. During the cold war Russia and the US were at each others throats, and there was never a nuclear strike. Tensions were much higher then than they are now. Iran would be crazy to try and engage in a nuclear war with us, we have one of the largest missile arsenals in the world. They may be able to produce enough nuclear material to make one or two warheads. We would clearly win in a fight, but that's not a reason to start a fight.

2. Holocaust.

If Iran decides to commit genocide, then I'm all for stepping in. The point is they haven't. Iran hasn't tried to ethnically cleanse anything. The possibility that they may is completely hypothetical, and doesn't justify a preemptive strike.

3. Iran holding terrorists.

So the problem is that we don't have the terrorists? That's completely and utterly ridiculous. Since when does the US have the right to pull prisoners to other countries and take them under our jurisdiction. We have no right to take prisoners being held by another country. And as for taking them to Guantanamo, you obviously no nothing about the US prison there. Guantanamo bay holds very few real terrorist suspects. Everything reported on the prison is that it's a black hole for human rights that holds people without charges, without evidence, and many times, without logical reason. There was a very interesting This American Life show about it.

4. Boat incident

You fail to respond to my arguments on the boat incident because you don't find the BBC credible. That's ridiculous, why not just say you concede the point.

5. Current wars

I know we're fighting a war. I said we're fighting a war. I also said I didn't consider the war JUST. As in, I don't think the war has basis. That's not a shot at our soldiers, the fact that you think so just reflects the ignorance of conservatives, who think that if you're a liberal you hate the military. Oh, and 'our brothers in sisters' are dying in vain. We have no reason to be in Iraq.

6. Vietnam war.

Fine we didn't 'lose' the Vietnam war, we just succumbed to the tactics being used by the Vietcong and pulled out because we were being slaughtered. Call it a strategic withdrawal if it makes you feel better.

7. Economy.

Why don't we ask the Fed if we face a recession? Well they have cut interest rates on an average of 1/2% a week, so they obviously think we're on the brink of a recession.

8. Putting price on safety.

I'm not putting a price on safety. If a hundred billion dollars can buy us safety, then lets pay up. Unfortunately, it can't. To secure ourselves against every threat we face we would need to spend trillions of dollars, we don't have the money to do that. To think that we can be completely safe is unrealistic.

9. My Impacts.

-This war will result in a loss of US soft power.
-The US will face a growing threat of terror, due to the disillusion of another American occupation.
-The war will cost us money which we don't have.
-The war would result in a huge loss of life on both sides.
-Going to war with Iran can't solve terrorism abroad.

10. What you conceded.

When you fail to address my arguments, you concede the point, which means that we're in agreement. Here's what you conceded last round:

You conceded my economy arguments
You conceded my troop level arguments
You concede the fact that if we apply "better safe than sorry" to Iran, then we have to apply it to the rest of the world. That means you agree with me.
You concede the surge isn't effective

Since you conceded all that, I'm not sure you have an argument. Good luck though.

(And there's a spell checker built right into the debate.org website, try using it)
Debate Round No. 4
righty10294

Pro

righty10294 forfeited this round.
hattopic

Con

Oh the irony. Righty, time and time again I've seen you despair and complain over your opponents forfeiting rounds, and yet it's you that seems to have forfeited your crucial 5th round argument. The weird thing is, I looked at your profile, and you've been online since I last posted. Maybe you didn't think you could win this one.

So, I'll extend my impacts

-Loss of US soft power.
-Increase in number of terrorists.
-Cost -> economic collapse
-Loss of life from war
-Lack of terror solvency -> more terror attacks.

And I'll point out again that: you conceded most of my arguments, that I rebutted all of your arguments, and that you offer no logical explanation for going to war.

And I won't do anything else, because I've got work to do.

-Matt
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
I honestly just feel sad for you, watchman. First of all, I did vote. I voted in the 2004 presidential election and I voted in the 2006 mid-term elections.

I have no idea what your point is about helping my kids with their homework but from what I've seen you have no business helping yours.

How am I a stupid child? Do you have any basis for this statement? I'm a 21 year old international politics major at one of the best liberal arts schools in the south. Try responding to my arguments instead of personal attacks. Like I said, if you want to debate me regarding Islam or the Middle East or going to war with Iran or anything in general I would love to. But you seem to be more interested in lobbing weak insults in my direction.

Also, I'm not a dem, I'm a registered independent.

Stalin did what now? Continuously said the word neo-con? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Glenn Beck is not a "master of news info". He is a master of comedy. That's why he's the editor of a comedy magazine.

What am I speaking about that I don't know? Geopolitics? That's my major, sir.

If by path of destruction you mean speaking up against bigotry and downright factual innacuracy then yes, I suppose I will.

And finally, how exactly are you not a neo-con?
Posted by hattopic 8 years ago
hattopic
Didn't see your comment there watchman. Since you failed to respond to any of my questions I don't think I can argue with you. Honestly, I'm beginning to think you're kidding, and that everything you've said is one big joke.
Posted by hattopic 8 years ago
hattopic
Same to you, although, I think righty could have debated all the rounds in either of our debates and the outcome would have been exactly the same
Posted by watchman 8 years ago
watchman
to both of you. Get hostile and upset if you must . Family duties are nothing of which you can understand because you do not have to help your kids with ther homework!. Go ahead and have some fun laughs if you would like but it is my hope that you will never have a say so in this country! DID YOU VOTE? As for you webber I do have a say so in how this nation is run you are just a stupid child who is a dem in all due respect. remember you keep stateing neo-con stallen did the same bs. I get my news from the masters of news info. these thing that I see and listen to are the truth. you may speak of what you do not know and critize me so what! you are not s. continue on your path of destruction'and dont worry you will get it sooner than you wish. neo-con . that is the best you can do sir? damn this only proves your ignorrance
Posted by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
Thanks, good job in the debate by the way, maybe eventually righty will debate someone on this topic for all the allotted rounds.
Posted by hattopic 8 years ago
hattopic
Rwebberc, I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Posted by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
Do you even know why I found that quote of yours funny, watchman?
Posted by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
Oh, and you're also "to stupid" to understand anything. Guess what watchman? You haven't provided any facts to back up your propaganda, and the only "source" you've provided is glennbeck.com. This is completely laughable, do you know who Glenn Beck is? He's a talk show host. This is about the same as taking stock market tips from Matt Lauer or getting medical advice from Oprah. Glenn Beck didn't go to college, he doesn't have a PhD in Islamic Theology, his opinions don't matter any more than some guy on the street's. This is why I'm glad YOU don't have any role in shaping the future of our nation, because you are a sheep. Someone gives an opinion that you already agree with, and you think that's enough to justify your beliefs. Keep following Glenn Beck, see how far that gets you. He is a petty, bigoted, neo-con whose opinions are entertaining and nothing more. Sounds like you're doing a good job so far.
Posted by hattopic 8 years ago
hattopic
Damn. I wish I could let that slide. But I can't.

So I'll just ask you a couple of questions.

1. What exactly is "the truth"? You keep mentioning it, I'm not sure what you're referring too.

2. What comments did I make that you found childish?

3. What do family duties, and/or my age have to do with our argument?

4. How is Glenn Beck separate form the media?

5. Why do you feel it's necessary to personally insult me?

6. In what way would you characterize my comments as 'ignorant'?

7. Before your last comment, how did you say you got your news?

8. Most importantly, will you ever reverse your opinions and agree with me on any of the things we have disputes about?

Answer those questions, and maybe I'll better understand where you're coming from.
Posted by watchman 8 years ago
watchman
rwebberc can you do any better? you see the discussion below! state your point!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Daddy_Warbux 8 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kals 8 years ago
Kals
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FiredUpRepublican 8 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ristaag 8 years ago
Ristaag
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 8 years ago
RepublicanView333
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by inrainbows 8 years ago
inrainbows
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rwebberc 8 years ago
rwebberc
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hattopic 8 years ago
hattopic
righty10294hattopicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03