Stace

Please vote for who you feel won Week 1's debate, and discuss.

__________________
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.

~Benjamin Franklin

Volker

I liked niftydrifty's approach to focus on the content, it is better than to focus on how good sources are, in my opinion.

Stace

Ok, we've had a few votes, but not a whole lot of discussion. For those of you that have already voted, would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted that way?

Billo_Really

TOT didn't bring his A-game to this one!

It's obvious he had other demands on his time that prevented him from being more committed to winning this one. Not that it would of changed the results. Because it's also apparent Nifty was loaded for bear with a laser guided scope.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Stace

I'm a little disappointed that there was not more discussion. Or more votes. Oh well, maybe next time.

Sooooo....

niftydrifty wins by a unanimous vote! Congratulations, nifty, and thanks to you and ToT both for participating!

Billo_Really

Even though TOT didn't get one vote, I bet he'll try to spin this is his favor.

niftydrifty

I had to read some stuff in order to prepare for that one. Bushie's impeachability is IMO quite a bit harder to argue than say, "Is GWB a liar?" ... "or is GWB credible at all on any matter of policy?"

if TOT wants to come back for round II, maybe he'd like to go for one of those 'easier' wins, er, I mean, ones...

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

Billo_Really

George Bush is the most impeachable President we have ever had. There is so much evidence to justify his removal from office, that the rest of the world is looking at American's as ignorant, TV watching, narcissists that don't have a clue as to what he is doing wrong. Here's the short list of reasons:

• Saying he will defend the Constitution during his oath of office, then enacting legislation such as the Patriot Act and MCA which compromise the authority of the Constitution.
• Starting a war 9 months prior to receiving authorization from Congress.
• Illegally attacking Iraq and Afganistan in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter (which was ratified by our Congress, thus making it the Supreme Law of our Land as well).
• Bringing dishonor to this nation by violating the Geneva Conventions
• Committing war crimes and genocide in Iraq as a result of the illegal invasion and occupation
• Forcing Iraq to write a Constitution in a time of war which violates International Law
• Lying to this nation by saying he is exhausting all diplomatic avenues with Saddam Hussein while at the same time telling UN inspectors he could not "...guarantee their safety"

I could go on all day (and provide sources and links for everything above), but you get the picture.

How about debating him on what it means to be an American?

Billo_Really

I've always said one should consider a source just to be prudent. And only do that to a point. But ya don't stick all your eggs in that basket. Whether an assertion is true or not should not be based soley on whether one feels the source is not "reader pre-approved". I think people that use ad hom's do it to mask their limited debating skills and lazy inteligence.

So, I guess I agree with you.

Volker

There are sources which are really weird or incredible by design, but these which have an acceptable level should be handled this way.