Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
This thread has taken some interesting twists and turns.
Some "debating techniques", such as reframing the opposing person's words are clearly evident. It's called "implication", and can go on and on until corrected.
It goes like this..."This is what I thought you said, correct me if I'm wrong."
When, in reality, none such was said.
Anyway, back to the original point of the thread so as to not shed more light on "debating techniques"....
Now that Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham (all Republicans) have voiced concern over demands for clarification by President G. Bush regarding Common Article 3 of the Geneva Accords, I concur with Sen. McCain in that "The United States should demonstrate the higher moral ground."
In my view, we will lose credibility by stooping to the treatment of others regarding "prisoners of war".
I'll remind you, Senator McCain was held as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese for almost seven years. Their treatment of pow's was despicable,
and they labeled them as "enemy combatants" and "terrorists".
|
It has nothing to do with a"debating technique". Dalakhani can correct me if I am misinterpreting his beliefs in any way. From reading his posts, his position appears to be that since no side is "all good" and no side is "all evil" then that means that there is no real right or wrong and everyihng is a grey area. If that is not his position, then he can say so and he can give some specific examples of things that are "black and white."