The Instigator
LuciferWept
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"Winning Hearts and Minds" is a Terrible Policy for a Military to Adopt.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 98435
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

LuciferWept

Pro

So, rules first:

Round 1: Acceptance and Opening Statements
Round 2: First Argument, Elaborate on Opening Statement
Round 3: Refutation or Elaboration
Round 4: Rebuttals, Refutations, or Elaborations
Round 5: Closing Statements (No Sources in Final Round)

Sources may be placed within argument or comments. If within comments, state so in argument.

NO FORFEITING

_________________________________________________________________________

I am challenging anybody who will accept to a debate on the policy of "Winning Hearts and Minds" used by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Iraq)

Otherwise called Galulan tactics, Winning Hearts and Minds is actually detrimental to any effort which requires military action. The role of a military is to wage war, and the purpose of war is to use force to bend one's enemy to one's will. Utilizing Galulan Tactics in an effort to win the support of the population only serves to prolong the war, wasting both resources and lives in the process.
Unstobbaple

Con


Thanks for the softball



You cannot pwn a person



From Slaves to frostitutes, husbands and wives all the way to boyfriends and girlfriends: you CanNac own a person.



All soldiers are not combatants



You need medics, cooks, commedianists/newsmen to run a group in the best way we know. Obviously adopting hearts and minds will help not only the noncombatants in your military but also those you engage in war.



One policy is a mistake but one of many is mammon.



No need to adopt a single policy and within your resolution there is room for manny. If I had an infinite number of policies to adopt obviously “winning hurts and mind$ would bee one of them’



Terrible references morality



It’s a reference to what we should do rather than what we can do.



I exempt.



Merry Christmass DDa!



[1] meme


Debate Round No. 1
LuciferWept

Pro

I cannot really tell if Con is serious or just a troll...

Anyway, time for the First Argument:

Galulan tactics, (i.e. Winning Hearts and Minds) are a series of tactics developed by David Galula[1]. A French Officer in the French-Algerian War, Galula felt that the best method of maintaining French control over the Algerians was to win them with friendship. It should be mentioned that the French-Algerian War was the war where Algeria won its independence, and Galulan tactics certainly contributed to France's defeat.

Let us not continue using fancy names like Galulan Tactics or long titles like Winning Hearts and Minds. Instead, let us call this method what it really is: Buying Friends, something every mother tells their children not to do.

If we examine the US Foreign Policy up to the Surrendur of Imperial Japan in August of 1945, we see that the Military was not used to make friends, but to defeat an enemy. In no war were the Americans known to try and make friends with their enemies. And up through the Second World War, the United States never lost a war.

However, post-1945, the military history of the US (which was a hegemonic power until the 2010's) tells a completely different story. The United States and its allies (mainly Britain and the Republic of Korea) fought the Chinese and North Korean military to a draw in the Korean War of the 1950s. Galulan tactics were not present as of yet. The idea of buying frineds was first experimented with in the Vietnam War, although on very seldom occassions. However, the seeds of defeat were sown when William Calley was tried for the My Lai Massacre.[2] To quote General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is a cruel thing, and the crueller it is, the quicker it will be over." Instead, the US in Vietnam tried to take the moral highground (of which there is none in war). The Vietkong, after signing the Paris Peace Accords, violated that treaty and proceeded to invade South Vietnam starting with the 1975 Spring Offensive [3]. In short, for the first time, the enemies of the US were not afraid of the American military.


Of the next three wars the US would engage in, it only won a single one of them, Desert Storm. The War in Afghanistan still rages with the US having to maintain a military present in order to prop its puppet government against insurgent forces that it can't quite eradicate.

We now come to Iraq. As soon as the Americans left, feeling the puppet state of Iraq was stable and safe, it collapsed into the Islamic State. This is because the method of buying friends only works as long as one keeps paying for these friends. Handing out food packages was great in theory, but as soon as the US forces left, the people no longer cared and some of them joined another group that promised them things.

War is won through fear, not through niceness.



1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
3) https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unstobbaple

Con


Bin subtie,




“I cannot really tell if Con is serious or just a troll…”




Trolling with logic and good intentions are clearly possible so pro starts with a false dichotomy or that the only options are a troll or a serius person which would make for a pretty dull existence. [1:35].




Anyway, time for the First Argument:




“‘Galulan tactics, (i.e. Winning Hearts and Minds) are a series of tactics developed by David Galula[1]. A French Officer in the French-Algerian War, Galula felt that the best method of maintaining French control over the Algerians was to win them with friendship.’”




Friendship is a false analogy as in, “The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion [1:40]." The main goal of war is obviously not to gain friends and it’s incriminating that Pro uses this analogy. Who would go to war to make friends?




No need for quotations when you are citing your own ideas. To quote Poes first source, “A victory [in a counterinsurgency] is not the destruction in a given area of the insurgent's forces and his political organization. ... A victory is that plus the permanent isolation of the insurgent from the population, isolation not enforced upon the population, but maintained by and with the population.”




The goal is permanent isolationof insurgency which is the exact opposite of friendship.


Pro’s source is clear that the goal is to build a functional community while avoiding as much hostile action as possible.




“Galulan tactics certainly contributed to France's defeat.”




This is just an assertion not an argument.




“Buying Friends, something every mother tells their children not to do.”




I would add that as number 1) to the list of things all mothers tell their children, the second being that Santa Claus is real, that we should reconsider. Everyone buys friends but some tactics lead to resentment or bitter feuds rather than quality friendship. Here’s an example of a friendship that may work well between friends S and B.




B, “I like to read about psychology and sociology but I’m not very good at math.”


S, “Great I’m good at math which is useful in business. I could teach you?”


S, “I’m asking because I could use some help with my psychology homework.”


B, “Sounds like a plan Stan. Do u like all the arts?”


S, “Yes, anything from the books to the beats.”


B,”Great, this may be the start of a terrible friendship.”




Said no one ever. It’s clear they can trade interests and buy time together. Friendship works because there is a lot of give and take vs a one sided forced relationship.




“If we examine the US Foreign Policy up to the Surrendur of Imperial Japan in August of 1945, we see that the Military was not used to make friends, but to defeat an enemy. In no war were the Americans known to try and make friends with their enemies. And up through the Second World War, the United States never lost a war.”





I’m not sure you’ve historyed before. Japan and Germany are now great allies. Last I checked their cultures remain in tact (unfortunately even bit coins won’t buy this) and we have great relations with them.





“However, post-1945, the military history of the US (which was a hegemonic power until the 2010's) tells a completely different story. The United States and its allies (mainly Britain and the Republic of Korea) fought the Chinese and North Korean military to a draw in the Korean War of the 1950s. Galulan tactics were not present as of yet. The idea of buying frineds was first experimented with in the Vietnam War, although on very seldom occassions. However, the seeds of defeat were sown when William Calley was tried for the My Lai Massacre.




[2] To quote General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is a cruel thing, and the crueller it is, the quicker it will be over." Instead, the US in Vietnam tried to take the moral highground (of which there is none in war). The Vietkong, after signing the Paris Peace Accords, violated that treaty and proceeded to invade South Vietnam starting with the 1975 Spring Offensive [3]. In short, for the first time, the enemies of the US were not afraid of the American military.”






So by your own add mission the war strategy you object to was not used in Viet Nam. From the beginning there have been rules in war. They used to just line up and shoot each other in the face. Maybe they were using the golden rule? Now a good general rule is don’t use nukes.





“Of the next three wars the US would engage in, it only won a single one of them, Desert Storm. The War in Afghanistan still rages with the US having to maintain a military present in order to prop its puppet government against insurgent forces that it can't quite eradicate.




We now come to Iraq. As soon as the Americans left, feeling the puppet state of Iraq was stable and safe, it collapsed into the Islamic State. This is because the method of buying friends only works as long as one keeps paying for these friends. Handing out food packages was great in theory, but as soon as the US forces left, the people no longer cared and some of them joined another group that promised them things.”





While I’ll agree that community building is important and friendship. Some may even use war to intimidate others in order to intimidate anyone who provides criticism seeing that help as an accusation. You need to continually pay for friends and they need to pay you or you will likely stop being friends. This is why countries that trade a lot remain allies.





“War is won through fear, not through niceness.”





The history of war has lead to increased trade, cooperation and alliances. Of course it will ultimately lead to the evil world order when we can all agree on a common set of rules *shudders*. Kindness is a big part of war.




We were too harsh with Germany and this ultimately led to world war II. While fear is ultimately part of a war it is in no way the most effective or or single strategy. This is another false dichotomy from ‘Pro’. ;‘War’ is simply bad for business so we have less and less reason to engage in ‘Wars.’ Even the language of war is not really helpful such as a war on obesity.




One last thought on fear and war. Thomas Hobbes wrote, "my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear, and fear has been my constant companion for my entire life." Hobbes was raised in war and profession help was not readily available then to cure him of his ailment.




[1] http://utminers.utep.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
LuciferWept

Pro

So, now I shall rebutt.

Con, in criticizing my argument, says "The main goal of war is obviously not to gain friends and it’s incriminating that Pro uses this analogy. Who would go to war to make friends?" Indeed, a decent question, one to which I must respond with a question: Who would go to war with the intention of handing out food to the people of their enemy and building schools and hospitals for those people? And before Con calls this a false analogy, let me quote him again: "Pro’s source is clear that the goal is to build a functional community while avoiding as much hostile action as possible."

If we use doublethink, Galulan tactics work, but when we either think about it logically, or use empiricism on where it has been attempted, we see that these tactics do not work. Con does lots of work debunking my argument, but never provides a historical example where these tactics have been seen to work. I provide the French-Algerian War, the Iraq War of 2003, and the ongoing (and expensive) Afghanistan War. Not only do these wars cost money in building communities and aide, but also cost the lives of soldiers tasked with carrying out Galulan tactics; far more than scorched earth warfare would cost.

I make a passing comment which Con tries to be witty with: "Buying Friends, something every mother tells their children not to do." The way he tries to be witty is as such: "
I would add that as number 1) to the list of things all mothers tell their children, the second being that Santa Claus is real, that we should reconsider." Are you sure Con, that all Muslim mothers tell their children Santa exists, or Jewish mothers? What about Buddhist mothers and Hindu mothers? What about Atheist mothers? Do all of them tell their children Santa exists? I do not mean to present this a necessarily a complete defense of my statement (which stands more on rhetorical symbolism than on literal meaning) but to demonstrate that Con, although he perceives himself as witty, is quite lacking in intellect. And now it gets heavy:

Con provides a nice little dialogue to demonstrate how everybody buys friends. I will not waste the characters (although I did find the naming of characters S & B to be truly witty, Con, the only wit you've displayed so far), but encourage a third party reader to examine it for himself. What Con describes is called Quid Pro Quo, or This for That. And although I concede that this is how many friendships are made, if not all, this has nothing to do with Galulan tactics. If I may provide an example of Galulan tactics between B & S.

B: "S, I am going to kick your butt."

S: "No, B, don't. Please, I'll buy you lunch."

B: "Okay, then I won't kick your butt."

(next day)

B: "I am going to kick your butt today, S."

S: "What if I buy you lunch again?"

B: "Fine."

(next day)

B: "You gonna buy me lunch again, S?"

S: "B, I don't have money. I spent it all already."

B: "You're gonna get your butt kicked."


This is a better example of Galulan Tactics.

Much like the recent Terror attacks in both the US and Europe, we see this same thing taking place with regards to the Islamic State. Instead of defeating the enemy when in Iraq, the Coalition Forces decided instead to "isolate" the enemies and buy the neutral populace. Problem is, once they left, the neutral populace was no longer being bribed by them and ISIS started to bribe them instead. If the occupation was to last a century, then perhaps Galulan Tactics might work, but seeing as that very few countries can provide so much aide with zero return for that amount of time, Galulan tactics remain inadvisable both martially and economically.

Con attempts another witty remark, but fails miserably. "I’m not sure you’ve historyed before. Japan and Germany are now great allies. Last I checked their cultures remain in tact (unfortunately even bit coins won’t buy this) and we have great relations with them." First, I should like to point out that history is a noun, not a verb. I present this as evidence that Con intellectually feeble. Now, as for Germany and Japan. Neither of those two countries have engaged in Offensive or Defensive War for their own reasons since WW2. Germany merely follows the orders of the United States and Japan maintains a military which it terms as a JSDF, or Japanese Self-Defense Forces. No longer are the two former Axis powers permitted to wage war against their neighbors because they are occupied by the American Superpower. I wonder, why did these two cultures, which are historically very martial and warlike (with the history of the Germanic tribes destroying the Roman Empire and the Teutonic legacy as well as the Samurai legacy and Japan's Imperial history), what could have caused them to become so docile?

Well, there was this little thing called WW2, and after German cities were laid to waste by Allied and Soviet forces and two atomic bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the peoples of those Nations did not want to be fierce again. Imagine the policy back then was to utilize Galulan tactics! Attempting to bribe the German people to not like the Nazis and the same with the Japanese....and the whole world would soon be speaking Japanese and German. The way it looks right now is that thanks to Galulan tactics, Europe may soon be speaking Arabic.

More of Con's feeble argument:
"So by your own add mission the war strategy you object to was not used in Viet Nam. From the beginning there have been rules in war. They used to just line up and shoot each other in the face. Maybe they were using the golden rule? Now a good general rule is don’t use nukes." First, it is 'admission' not 'add mission'.

Here Con tries to refute my argument by pointing at how violent war used to be and jumps to the opposite extreme of Galulan Tactics: Nuclear War. Ultimately, this is a strawman and requires little debunking.

One smart thing Con says in his inconsistent rambling: "You need to continually pay for friends and they need to pay you or you will likely stop being friends." Yes, this is true. But this has nothing to do with Winning Hearts and Minds. The US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take, but to give. Thus they did not repay at all. No Quid Pro Quo there.

Again, Con shows his lack of historical knowledge: "We were too harsh with Germany and this ultimately led to world war II." He is telling a half truth, and I do not think it is on purpose. Indeed, the Treaty at Versailles was not kind to Germany, but Germany had never really been ravaged the way it was in the Second World War. Con, do you really think that an occupation, dividing the country, and giving half of it to the Soviet Union, the Army of which had just raped and raided its way to Berlin, is less harsh than the terms of the Treaty at Versailles?

I feel somehow obligated to address the arguments made by Con in his first nonsensical post. "You cannot pwn a person". First, it is spelled 'own' and this would be a great argument if we were discussing the morality of slavery. However, it has nothing to do with Galulan Tactics. "You need medics, cooks, commedianists/newsmen to run a group in the best way we know. Obviously adopting hearts and minds will help not only the noncombatants in your military but also those you engage in war." We had these same jobs in all the wars where we were vicious and brutal. These are support jobs, logistical jobs necessary to war. However, Winning Hearts and Minds does nothing for them but lead to continuous deployments to a warzone where they too are placed in harm's way.

"Terrible references morality" I guess. Terrible can also be an adjective describing the quality of something. For example, Con's arguments are terrible. I am not saying Con's arguments are morally repugnant, just that they are worthless.

Now we come to another stunning example of Con trying to think. He quotes Thomas Hobbes, most likely through a quote search through Google. He cites Thomas Hobbes, who said in his famous book Leviathan, "But the infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the benefit of the Common-Wealth, and without violation of any former covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature." (Hobbes, Leviathan, 360, Penguin Classics.) So it is quite obvious that although a search on Google might turn up quote in your favor, Hobbes would agree with me. Con, if you're going to try and passively argue from authority and use a famous philosopher, make sure that what he's famous for doesn't concur with your opponent's argument.

https://www.amazon.com...





Unstobbaple

Con

Please continue. You're doing great.
Debate Round No. 3
LuciferWept

Pro

Since Con is unable to provide any argument and merely asserts things due to a perceived moral high ground, I thank him for ceding the debate to me. His incompetency and inability was no match, and this was quite boring. Hoping for an intellectual opponent, or at least one with a knowledge of history and spelling.
Unstobbaple

Con

To address then comment debate in the room I'll clarify that it is a war for hearts and minds (obviously not relevant to the debate). The confusion there is normally caused by the idea that it is not. Don't think twice about it, just bee yourself and shoot for the stars.
Debate Round No. 4
LuciferWept

Pro

Con was clearly a troll. Apologizing to all readers.
Unstobbaple

Con

Pro repeatedly says that I am not witty at every possible opportunity.

To paraphrase, this means she thinks I am witty and it bothers her that I’m superior in that category. This is a glaring example of insecurity. You’r’ obviously quite brilliant so it’s not a big deal that I’m more skilled at something you don’t understand. For instance, I’m not a member of the grammar police and it doesn’t bother me:



“Who would go to war with the intention of handing out food to the people of their enemy and building schools and hospitals for those people?”

No one but building hospitals and school turns the average community member against subversive elements of a culture. There are also many goals you may have in war. If you anticipate a possible ally you will obviously offer help, when possible (you’r’ welcome), so they will be better off if and when they realize you’r’ not just there to murder people you disagree w/.




“Con does lots of work debunking my argument, but never provides a historical example where these tactics have been seen to work.”

First, this is an example of a, “Shifting the Burden of Proof: A classic fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument [1:92].”

I provide the example of virtually every modern culture that have been at war in the past but are now allies. I specifically reference Japan and Germany as I am more familiar with the United States. Interesting enough, Australia is now on good terms with the UK. Europe has formed a union and single currency despite multiple wars and conflicts in the past.



“Are you sure Con, that all Muslim mothers tell their children Santa exists, or Jewish mothers?”

No, and this is obviously a strawman, “The Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw Figure"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand.”

I used santa as an example that is most relevant to citizZzens of the United States. I’m sure both Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hidus have there own childish myths. ‘You know this but you’r’ acting like you don’t know.’



“And although I concede that this is how many friendships are made, if not all, this has nothing to do with Galulan tactics.”

This is just an assertion. You have not offered evidence to suggest that this is not a basic, ground level example of Galulan tactics that we all are familiar with from childhood (before we learn that childish myths are not realistic.)



Regarding Pro's dialogue example

At which point S may reach a tipping point and ‘buy’ some friends and isolate B from the community since it’s now clear that B is a bully of the worst flavor.

“the Coalition Forces decided instead to "isolate" the enemies and buy the neutral populace. Problem is, once they left, the neutral populace was no longer being bribed by them and ISIS started to bribe them instead.”

Yes, I’ve conceded that ongoing trade or as you say it, ‘bribery,’ must continue in the long term or you will lose your relationship with the elements of a society that are not subversive. In your example, Isis did bribe non-subversives making them more successful at using Galulan Tactics while. Bribing is a corrupt man’s form of ‘trading.’ You’ve described an example where the least effective form of Galulan Tactics, ‘bribery’, worked because the United States failed to form a stronger connection, ‘trade,’ with the majority of the populace.




“First, I should like to point out that history is a noun, not a verb. I present this as evidence that Con intellectually feeble.”

This is actually evidence of Pro’s ignorance of common memes [2]. Using nouns as verbs is often used to reveal n00bish behavior or identify grammar police.



“what could have caused them (Japan and Germany) to become so docile?”

Yes, continuous use of force remains an effective low brow form of Galulan Tactics (our debate is now the second hit after wikipedia so I’ll now define it as friendship;) It’s better for all involved if you can move forward to honest forms of friendship, as in trade, to avoid the need to bully countries into being your friend.

“Well, there was this little thing called WW2, and after German cities were laid to waste by Allied and Soviet forces and two atomic bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the peoples of those Nations did not want to be fierce again. “

Yes, force is the last argument of kings. Absolute force and domination is only the last resort which is why the United States now avoids the use of nukes as we saw in Japan. You may be familiar with stockholm syndrome. Captives often eventually develop a close relationship with their forced companions. This is perhaps the worst and most destructive way to create a long term relationship with someone but the even then the end result is cooperation and not brute force.



“First, it is 'admission' not 'add mission'.”

Again, google tactics used to identify grammar police.



“Here Con tries to refute my argument by pointing at how violent war used to be and jumps to the opposite extreme of Galulan Tactics: Nuclear War.”

No, extreme force is a very brutish base version of Galulan tactics with the same long range goal of a cooperative relationship. In worst case scenarios, ie war, the goal is to isolate insurgents as seen in the main force available to describe Galulan tactics (this debate and wikipedia).



“The US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take, but to give. Thus they did not repay at all. No Quid Pro Quo there. “

Yes, so this was another extreme example of cooperative Tactics , *cou Galulan gh*, since all we did was give and did not require reciprication. So we have the two extremes used to build relationships, force and mindless charity, while I would advocate something more towards the center normally portrayed as ultra-violet or the supernatural (netflix that shite) combination of current conservative and liberal norms (Cheers.)



“Con, do you really think that an occupation, dividing the country, and giving half of it to the Soviet Union, the Army of which had just raped and raided its way to Berlin, is less harsh than the terms of the Treaty at Versailles?”

I would characterize anything anyone says as a 1/infinity (not half) truth but I enjoy the maths. Clearly I can’t describe all the ‘truths’ associated with WWD12 in a few sentences. I’ll agree that that the terms were hasher but the goal was now long term cooperation with the culture and isolation of the insurgency rather than isolation of the whole population as in WW1.


“I feel somehow obligated to address the arguments made by Con in his first nonsensical post. ‘You cannot pwn a person.’ First, it is spelled 'own'”

Your grammar police badge is glimmering so bright it’s blinding… also know your memes pwnd.



“These are support jobs, logistical jobs necessary to war. However, Winning Hearts and Minds does nothing for them but lead to continuous deployments to a warzone where they too are placed in harm's way.”

You’r’ again exactly wrong. The goal of long term deployment is a cooperative relationship and a blending of cultures. Google Alexander the Great for a thorough lesson on cooperative tactics to end wars in general.



“‘Terrible references morality’ I guess. Terrible can also be an adjective describing the quality of something. For example, Con's arguments are terrible. I am not saying Con's arguments are morally repugnant, just that they are worthless.”

I can think of half a dozen uses of ‘terrible’ but Pro has evaded the clear implication of one that is relevant here (morality) in favor of one that both agrees with her and reveals both an ad hominem argument (yes, that is an argument. It’s just a bad one:( and a confirmation bias. “The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well."): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says [1:3]." “Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, recognizing the fact that one always tends to notice, search out, select and share evidence that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to contrary evidence.”



"'But the infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the benefit of the Common-Wealth, and without violation of any former covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature.' (Hobbes, Leviathan, 360, Penguin Classics.)"

I used my favorite Hobbes quote and I referenced it for your benefit, it's not even an argument in my favor (you’r’ welcome.) In your quote Hobbes is talking about the exile of a non-conforming subversive element so your quote actually supports the Con position in this debate.



Con still dropped a round one statement (argument.)

One policy is a mistake but one of many is mammon.

No need to adopt a single policy and within your resolution there is room for many. If I had an infinite number of policies to adopt obviously, ‘winning hurts and minds’ would be one of them.



While Pro is required to provide proof for her position Con is not.

I successfully provided a strong reasonable doubt to refute her arguments. I have even been able to provide strong evidence that the opposite of Pro’s argument is closer to the ‘truth’ than the wikipedia source material.

-T-7

I’ll emphasize that Pro does have excellent grammar but that my unique style of writing (grammar) more accurately communicates multiple ideas which is a goal of language in the first place. As for conduct, we are both obviously ice cold but I think it’s clear I pushed ahead in this category.

I’ll link bengay for those burns. Seriously, great debate, and thanks to Pro for being a worthy opponent.

Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
If you did I wouldn't have noticed. I honestly do appreciate impeccable grammar. I just don't have the patience for it. Once I have the arguments right I'm go'n' a post. When I make grammar into a game it makes it easier to focus on.

Excellent satire here btw.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
I just want to know where I used "your" and not "you're"
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
Also, just in case your internets is still broken: http://knowyourmeme.com...
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
For Pro's reference. Sources not relevant to the debate:

http://knowyourmeme.com...
http://knowyourmeme.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
Clearly we've never met. Welcome to the last round.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
Aiso take a look at what we did there. H
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
I was hoping you would post seriusly hoping you'd post another argument so I would have something to respond to.
Posted by LuciferWept 1 year ago
LuciferWept
Yes, it does not count as working as that you are unable to work, it's too taxing on your intellectual abilities. Also, it's spelled "Psychopath". Idiot confirmed.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 year ago
Unstobbaple
This does not count as working, It's frankly so easy I'm getting bored. Psycopath confirmed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.