<karash> All right, bart, let's hear it.  In as short a statement as you can make it,
 tell me why you support, say, the average soldier in Iraq right now.

<bart> one reason? because I don't have the balls to sign up
<bart> the average soldier didn't sign up to kill Iraqis
<bart> he signed up to defend his country, we'll say

<karash> "Sign up" perhaps being shorthand for "being willing to put life on line"?
<bart> yeah

<karash> Ok, "being willing to put one's life on the line to defend one's country"
<karash> To you, that's something that's deserving of respect?
<bart> ha ha, dying has always been a fear of mine...

<karash> Or do you want to edit that before we go on?
<bart> no, I'll stick with that

<karash> Ok.  Then, by your logic, you would support the average suicide bomber?
Say one who used a plane as a bomb on 9 11 2001?

<bart> no, that's crazy - I wouldn't support our boys blowing up offices full of civilians, either
<karash> All right, then we see that we do indeed need another clarification.
<bart> wait, do I win that round?

<karash> Because your statement of why you support the troops--"willing to put their life
on the line to defend their country"--includes the hijackers in question.

<bart> no, it's stupid to sign up for death
<bart> singing up to defend with death being a possible side effect is different

<karash> I thought it was honorable?  I mean, you say you support people who
 put their life on the line to defend their country.
<karash> Ah.
<bart> " put their life on the line" is not "volunteer to die"

<karash> So, let's revise the statement: "Bart supports those who put their life on the line
to defend their countries IF there is a chance that they may survive."

<karash> Would that, now, be an accurate statement?
<bart> no - is the whole night going to be like this?

<karash> I asked you to come up with the statement explaining why you support the troops.
<bart> How about you take the 1560 issues as "what bart means" instead of trying to write for me?

<karash> I hope you're not intending to debate by making all your points "Look at what I put in 1560 pages of ranting"
<karash> That would be rather unsatisfying.

<bart> would you accept "volunteer for danger?"
<karash> Hm.  All right, then: "Bart supports those who volunteer for danger to defend their countries"?

<karash> Accurate statement?
<bart> no

<karash> All right.  How would you revise it?

<karash> Note that I'm just trying to figure out exactly what it is you believe, before debating you,
so we don't end up Limbaugh-like screaming misassumptions at one another.

<bart> how long will the debate screening take?
<karash> As long as it takes you to tell me what you believe in a defensible form.

<bart> maybe we could reverse it - I can't fault a guy for wanting to defend his country
<karash> We were talking about supporting them, not 'not faulting' them

<karash> Are you already withdrawing your support?
<karash> (I take it that's a no?)

<bart> so you're neutral?  I thought you were anti-troop?
<bart> You're wanting me to endorse Zarqawi and I'm not going to do it

<karash> I am "anti-troop" in the sense that I think they're doing the wrong thing.
If we wanted to dress that up to make it a more scathing debate, I could call them violent fools.

<bart> ha ha
<bart> now we're getting somehwre
<bart> the troops are violent fools, or the BFEE?

<karash> What you are doing is anticipating the problems with your own statements--you see it yourself.
Your support of the troops leads you to problems, which is why (I suggest) you cannot form a coherent
statement explaining why you do support them.

<karash> "The troops" (generalization) are violent fools according to my dressing up the term for debate.
For the moment, let's say that I do not support them, and that they have made a wrong decision, and that
they are not deserving of honor or support.

<bart> sure I can, but any sentence I type can be followed with "OK, so how about...? and it never ends
<karash> Incorrect--it does end.  When you have come to a position where you can answer "What about...?"
with "Yes, karash, I do.  I still support my statement."

<karash> Then, we've reached the point where we know what you believe.
<bart> since you refuse to even say what country you're in, you're hiding behind a wall that I don't have
<karash> Now you're switching to straw man.

<karash> Can we establish what it is you believe?
<karash> "We should support the troops because ________"
<karash> If all you have is a blind, gut feeling--a "faith" in the troops--that could explain why
you can't put it into a defensible statement.
<karash> That is faith, which you rail against day by day.

<bart> because they're making a sacrifice I'm not willing to make
<karash> OK.  But there's a problem--you wouldn't say that you support everyone
who makes sacrifices you're not willing to make
<karash> Such as, again, the hijackers.

<bart> you're asking me to support suicde bombers and I won't
<karash> So, that's not REALLY the reason you support the troops.  If it was, you'd support the hijackers.
<bart> ha ha

<karash> That's exactly the issue, bart.  If you can explain why you support the troops
and not the hijackers, then I can understand you.
<bart> that's why I didn't answer while ago - it'ds a handjob question

<karash> To ask you what you believe?  Why do I feel like I'm talking to Ari Fleischer?
<karash> (ha, ha)

<bart> the troops aren't training to intentionally kill innocent civilians who don't suspect an attack
<karash> Hm, ok.
<bart> argue with that

<karash> So, your revised statement would go: "Bart supports people who agree to risk their lives
defending their countries, on the condition that those people do not train to intentionally kill innocent
civilians who don't suspect an attack."

<bart> aren't YOU saying there's no diff between hijackers and the troops?
<karash> (*No, there is a difference, but let's stay with this statement for the moment*)

<karash> Accurate statement?
<bart> no, how about "Bart supports innocent american troops?"

<karash> Ah ha.
<karash> So, you only support Americans?
 

Sidebar:
See where we're going?
 

<karash> I quote Tom Tomorrow: "Do you draw unwavering faith in an invisible, omniscient deity
who favors those born in the middle of the North American land mass above all others?"

<bart> no

<karash> Then you should take the "American" out of that statement.

<bart> there is no invisible, omniscient deity

<karash> But you do believe Americans worthy of support, and others not?
<bart> I support American tropops because I'm familiar with their purpose,
I can't say that for every religious handjob with C4
<bart> I believe American (soldiers) worthy of support

<karash> Is that your way of saying that you believe Fox's attempt, through discussions of Sunni's
and Shi'ite's, to frame the war in Iraq in religious context, rather than as a war against foreign invasions?
<karash> Much the way they try to dress up Northern Ireland?

<bart> I can't speak for FOX's motives - I don't see them much

<CupOJoe> guys, I don't mean to interrupt, but may a venture a quick comment?
<karash> Shoot.
<bart> go ahead, Joe

<CupOJoe> You seem to be running around in circles, perhaps if you each laid out the basic
premise of your position, then returned to the debate along those lines?

<karash> Exactly.
<bart> I think circles favor karash
<bart> as long as he keeps dancing, he's hard to hit

<karash> Bart, let's try to stick with that one statement, because I still haven't gotten from you what you believe.
<bart> I support the troops who commiteed no crimes

<CupOJoe> well since karash is the challenger, let him/her state clearly what side he/she is presenting
<bart> he won't do that

<CupOJoe>then bart can make a statement about his point of view
<bart> he wants to stay in circleville

<CupOJoe>well let's give him the opportunity, please, just to be polite
<bart> as long as he has hit foot on the base, he can't be tagged out

<karash> I've already said my point.  The troops are not deserving of honor or support (support being
 of the moral kind, I support giving them plane rides home)
<bart> but you're still hiding

<karash> We're straw manning again, bart.

<bart> if you're in America, those troops are protecting YOU
<karash> Incorrect.   (incorrect?)

<bart> if I had known the entire debate would hinge on my forming a bulletproof sentence,
I wouldn't spent the time to create one

<karash> I thought you understood that by invading other countries, they were putting us in
more danger from terrorism.  The point you just made was Bush's "bring it on" point.
I'm surprised to see you agreeing with it.

<bart> the troops didn't decide to invade
<bart> the decision was out of their hands - they were innocent

<karash> In scathing debate fashion, Bart, I would suggest that you are "whining" because
cognitive dissonance has left you unable to form a sentence stating why you believe the troops
should be supported.  Or a paragraph, or whatever.  Can you not explain it?

<karash> If you just have blind faith in "the troops" or "the military", then be honest and say it.
That's something that can be discussed, at least, in a fashion.

<bart> unless the troops commit a crime, they are blameless

<karash> (noticing that you are still avoiding the issue, I continue with...) I thought you believed
that invading the sovereign nation of Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people and the international
community WAS a crime?  Isn't that what you fault Bush for?

<bart> Invading Iraq IS a crime
<karash> But the criminals aren't liable, because... they were just taking orders?
<karash> and therefore, we should support them?

<bart> they took an oath not knowing a crime boss would be their leader
<karash> (entering the sarcastic realm) *cough* auschwitz *cough!*
<karash> Mm, so anyone who joined after 2001 IS a criminal?

<bart> did you miss the ENITRE debate the last week?
<karash> literally, yes.

<bart> then you're years behind
<bart> we've gone thru 40 e-mails on this
<bart> I have to repeat all 40 to catch you up?

<karash> Now you're referring to past debates.  This is not acceptable debate format, technically.
Can you not tell me what you believe? I'm still waiting for that.
<karash> I would suggest that you are trying to avoid the cognitive dissonance of being unable
to explain why you support the soldiers

<bart> I support the innocent troops
<karash> Yes, that is how you feel.  Can you tell me WHY?
<karash> Do you have a REASON?

<bart> I support the men who follow legal orders
<bart> don't need a reason
<karash> Reason? All right, that's a valid point of view.

<bart> why do I like Chinaco?  Do I need a reason?
<karash> So, bart feels that anyone (presumably an American soldier) who follows a legal
(American? international?) order deserves our support?

<bart> you're getting close...

<karash> Ok.  I can accept that.  Now, I'm curious--why are Americans so blessed that they
deserve this support, and the rest of the world doesn't?

<karash> (Incidentally, considering that the invasion was illegal, any order given in Iraq IS illegal)
<bart> No, that's crazy talk
<bart> In WW2, if a german soldier said "drive me to my hooker" that would be a war crime?
<bart> If a soldier in Iraq is told to drive water to tent 44, that's a war crime?

<karash> He would be committing illegal trespass/invasion while doing so.
<bart> illegal delivery of water?

<karash> A "war crime" is a more serious thing than merely "illegal," is it not?
<bart> OK, delivery of water is a "war crime?" feel better?

<karash> We're still dancing around the main issue, I remind you, by attacking one another's straw men.
I really suggest we go to the core.

<karash> Do you want an intruder delivering water to another intruder in your living room?
<bart> no, we have to spend the next 9 hours crafting a sentence so you can shoot at it.

<karash> Exaggeration.  I thought you wanted a debate.  How can we argue if we don't know what we believe?

<bart> Can I ask a question?
<bart> Wasn't it illegal for troops to land in Hitler's France 60 years ago?

<karash> Legality is relative, bart.
<bart> now who's dancing?

<bart> take a stand - what's wrong - got no core beliefs?
<karash> Not me.  You'll notice I defined the scope of legality by referring to international law
and the will of the Iraqi people.

<bart> you're unwilling to answer a simple question
<karash> Now you're projecting.  I've been asking you since the first line of the debate to tell me why
you believed in supporting the troops.

<bart> was the normandy invasion illegal or not?

<karash> All right, I'll answer the question.  According to German law, it was probably illegal.
According to Vichy French law, probably illegal.  There was no international law at that time, so no,
it wasn't illegal then either.

<bart> did you support that illegal and violent action?
<bart> yes or no

<bart> tick tock

<karash> How funny that you would ask such a loaded question when you know about
American businessmen, and the Bush family in particular, helping mastermind World War II.
<bart> changing the subject?

<karash> Yes, bart, I'll say I supported the invasion of Normandy, if it pleases you.
<karash> I'll even answer several more questions, if it will get you to tell me why you support the troops.

<bart> so, you would then logically support Bush's illegal invasion, too?
<bart> how dare you!
<bart> karash, supporter if illegal invasions

<karash> That doesn't work, because you didn't ask me for what standards by which I supported invasion,
you just asked me if I supported a different invasion.  Entirely unrelated.
<bart> it's no fun when the opponent refuses to argue legit, right?

<karash> (You're still avoiding the core issue of why you support the troops.  Please come back to it)
<bart> I support them and I don't need a reason - did you give me a reason for refusing to state what country you're in?

<karash> I don't see how it's illegitimate to ask you why you support the troops.
<karash> I'll tell you where I'm from if you can tell me why you support the troops.
<bart> should we spend an hour on "why" I'm a democrat?

<karash> You'll be suitably amused.  C'mon, it's worth it.  Agree to tell me why you support the troops,
and I'll even tell you my province.
<bart> I thought you were going to attack my support, not ask about it

<karash> You sound like Bush--shouldn't I know WHAT I'm attacking before I attack it?
<karash> If you support reasonless attacks, it would make sense that you support the troops.

<bart> you volunteered to be the "supreme dove" and debate

<karash> (You do realize, you're playing right into Bush's hand when you put your faith in the troops as they
carry out his plans.  He loves it.  Cheney is laughing at you right now.  And at me, too, but for different reasons.)

<bart> now you're asking questions instead of attack the position that made your write in the first place

<karash> I did, Bart.  So please, please, for the love of God, tell me why you support the troops.
Do you do things without a reason?

<bart> you see Bush and the troops as equally guilty? that's insane
<karash> No, I don't.  Straw man.  I never said that.

<bart> I asked a question - that's not a straw man
<bart> you seem to enmjoy saying "straw man" a lot

<karash> Implication.  And, mispelling, but we won't go there.
<karash> ;-)
<karash> You seem to enjoy doing it.  But again, we're off the point.

<karash> Why do you support the troops?  I imagine for different reasons than people
with "FREEDOM ISNT FREE" plastered on their SUVs.
<karash> I imagine you support them for different reasons than Bush, or Rice.

<karash> Shouldn't you explain to me, before I "attack"?
<karash> Shouldn't we know what we believe before we argue?
<karash> How can an argument have point if we don't know what we believe?

<bart> I vote we kill this never-got-started debate - anyone agree?

<bart> Fud, Cup, open the gates

<karash> Running Away.  Different than straw man, but equally unsatisfying.
<karash> (waaah!  he said he'd be the dove but then he asked me a question i couldn't answer!)
<curses> are you nearing making a point?
<karash> (therefore i rule!)

<CupOJoe> hold on a minute
<CupOJoe> let's go back to unvoiceing everyone but let karash and I talk

<karash> If anyone else can form a coherent statement explaining
why they believe something, I'll gladly discuss with them.

<curses> why do you expect someone to have a one-sided conversation just so you can do all the attacking later?
<karash> And by the way, bart, you said "debate," and by debate form, you do have to make an opening statement
saying what you believe.  Technically, I won, because I got you to back off your first few statements and make substantial revisions.
 

<karash> I believe I understand bart's position as well, CupOJoe.

<curses> how do you define "support"? It seems that you and Bart have different definitions, but whether you
can be bothered to explain is anyone's guess

<karash> (Bart, food for thought: I believe I understand why you want to support the troops.  They are mostly kids
who didn't know what they were getting into, they never wanted to kill anyone, and they just want to come home.
Unfortunately, that is the story of the world when it comes to soldiers.  We need to expect more from humanity,
because that sort of "innocence" that you are supporting in the troops is exactly what has led untold millions to bec

(lost the feed - my mistake)
 

<bart> karash, it's a little late to get reasonable

<karash> (When someone makes the decision to let someone else make life or death decisions for them--like a
soldier agreeing to take orders from Bush, and then following them--they are responsible for what happens.
Responsibility lies partly with Bush, but also with the soldiers that are carrying out his plans.  There will always be
evil men willing to order others to death for money; war will stop when young men stop using patriotism as a shield to th
 

<karash> I understand what you're saying, CupOJoe, but it isn't quite what we need.
<karash> What we need is the "why" behind it all.

<karash> Can you answer the question, "I support the troops because..."
<bart> can I answer it to your satisfaction? no

<karash> I'm not asking you to answer it to my satisfaction.
<karash> I'm asking you to answer it to YOUR satisfaction.

<bart> but you refused my answers, always asking for finer points
<karash> It is YOU who ends up disagreeing with what you have said, when I propose a scenario that
makes you realize that you can't stand behind your statement.
 

<karash> (bart: your own answers shot your own statements down.  you were the one who said,
"no, i guess I wouldn't support the suicide bombers, so that statement is out")
<bart> like your support of Hitler at Normandy?

<bart> wait - let me guess "straw man?

<bart> I'm going to watch my TIVO of tonight's poker game - g'night all
 

 Back to  bartcop.com