Handicapping the "Correctness of Iraq war" debate

looks like a good debate. both are very detailed in their posts.

i'm curious, what would constitute winning the debate, besides one side conceding defeat? if this were TV, we wait for network pundits to tell us who won.

I plan to start a poll thread for that after the debate is over....

To that extent, it is pointless. Brandon always asserts that he has won, because he always asserts that his thesis has not been addressed. By that, he means his thesis that the invasion is justified on the basis of the putative threat--and he doesn't support that thesis very well, other than to constantly harp on the possiblity that Hussein possessed womd, and not any appeal to reality.

No matter the strength of Cyclo's argument, Brandon will never concede. Cyclo has no reason to concede.

So may I assume you joined me in voting "neither?"

Well, not entirely. At present, i am not willing to assert that it will get bogged down in nitpicking.

I would note that if Brandon were to concede, and change his mind--there'd be no living with him.

I voted neither. I'm pretty sure the two will get bogged down and neither will concede anything.

In other words... it will be just like any other political debate on A2K :wink:

I have voted for cyclo, because if I were a teenage girl I would have his poster on my bedroom wall.

To be truthful, I have already asked him to send me a poster, but he has turned me down because in his estimation, I am nothing but a fifty year old pervert.

At least one poll in the US has correctly predicted an outcome....