• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Need Help Dealing With Liberal Professor

Originally Posted by FreeThinker
Before one of the mods goes moving this to another section please note this directly relates to Iraq.

In my western humanities course right now I have (as usual) an insanly liberal professor. About every other sentence he mentions that WMD were never found in Iraq and that Bush is an unethical man and that he lied blah blah blah.

The woman next to me has a son in Iraq and she just about starts crying every time he goes in to how Bush is wasting American lives. I'm getting really sick of holding my tongue so I would like some help from some fellow conservatives on the best way to respond, and how the argument will go.

I know hes trying to bait out the conservatives in his class by saying all this inflamitory stuff so I want to be well prepaired for the argument hes going to give me.

I'm thinking to start with a few of these:

"All the best intelligence in the world said that he still had WMD, and Saddam didn't give the weapons inspectors any chance to disprove that. He repeatedly violated UN sanctions be restricting their access and sometimes expelling them altogether."

or

"Saddam violated numerous (how many?) UN sanctions but the security council refused to take action due to three nation's financial interest in Iraq and the oil for food program. Without unilateral action nothing would have been done."

or

"We found the WMD. He was hiding in a spider hole."

or

"Are you saying it's a bad thing that a man as evil as Saddam was taken out of power?"

I don't know. Fellow conservatives please give me a few more arguments as well as what you think his responses to those statements will be. I want to be well prepaired to debate this guy and make him look like the douche he is in front of his class.
Click to expand...
How about me. You want some advice from me. I'm no conservative. I am very liberal. But I do love to argue. And here's my take on your situation. Allow me to break it down:

Your first one...
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
"All the best intelligence in the world said that he still had WMD, and Saddam didn't give the weapons inspectors any chance to disprove that. He repeatedly violated UN sanctions be restricting their access and sometimes expelling them altogether."
Click to expand...
...holds no water because Bush was told about the faulty intelligence long before his famous 16 words in his State of the Union address.

Your second one...
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
"Saddam violated numerous (how many?) UN sanctions but the security council refused to take action due to three nation's financial interest in Iraq and the oil for food program. Without unilateral action nothing would have been done."
Click to expand...
...isn't good either, because sanctions were going to be lifted very soon but we attacked first. As for OFF, our Houston businessman accounted for 51% of the money being redirected. But the biggest thing about OFF is the fact that we knew about all this for four years and said nothing. The UNSC was kept abreast of everything that was going on there and we are part of the top five.

Your third one...
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
"We found the WMD. He was hiding in a spider hole."
Click to expand...
...is just a bad joke.

Your fourth one...
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
"Are you saying it's a bad thing that a man as evil as Saddam was taken out of power?"
Click to expand...
...while moral in nature, is illegal in International Law. You cannot attack a sovereign nation for the simple act of a regime change, unless you have UNSC permission.

With all that being said, there is one thing you can argue with your professor. And that is from the position that if the US occupation of Iraq, at this point in time, was (or is) illegal, then why hasn't the United Nations come out and formally issued a resolution condemning the operation. If there isn't a formal resolution condemning US action in the Middle East, it can be argued that they are giving tacit approvel in regards to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
 
Billo_Really said:
How about me. You want some advice from me. I'm no conservative. I am very liberal. But I do love to argue. And here's my take on your situation. Allow me to break it down:

Your first one...
...holds no water because Bush was told about the faulty intelligence long before his famous 16 words in his State of the Union address.

Your second one...
...isn't good either, because sanctions were going to be lifted very soon but we attacked first. As for OFF, our Houston businessman accounted for 51% of the money being redirected. But the biggest thing about OFF is the fact that we knew about all this for four years and said nothing. The UNSC was kept abreast of everything that was going on there and we are part of the top five.

Your third one...
...is just a bad joke.

Your fourth one...
...while moral in nature, is illegal in International Law. You cannot attack a sovereign nation for the simple act of a regime change, unless you have UNSC permission.

With all that being said, there is one thing you can argue with your professor. And that is from the position that if the US occupation of Iraq, at this point in time, was (or is) illegal, then why hasn't the United Nations come out and formally issued a resolution condemning the operation. If there isn't a formal resolution condemning US action in the Middle East, it can be argued that they are giving tacit approvel in regards to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Click to expand...


Waitwaitwait back to the oil for food program. Links please to who the biggest violaters of that program were, and no BBC opinion pieces.

And making the arguement that taking saddam out of power was illegal is like saying that I couldn't stop the kid from getting hit by a car because to do so would have been violating the jaywalking ordanance.

Good call on the lack of a condemnation being tacit approval. Didn't think of that one before.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
Waitwaitwait back to the oil for food program. Links please to who the biggest violaters of that program were, and no BBC opinion pieces.

And making the arguement that taking saddam out of power was illegal is like saying that I couldn't stop the kid from getting hit by a car because to do so would have been violating the jaywalking ordanance.

Good call on the lack of a condemnation being tacit approval. Didn't think of that one before.
Click to expand...
Read Article 51 of the UN Charter. It allows for only two ways to attack a nation. 1) If we are attacked first or 2) we receive permission from the UNSC.

As for your link, here you go.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_101004A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.01E.Cheney.Hussein.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html
 
Billo_Really said:
Read Article 51 of the UN Charter. It allows for only two ways to attack a nation. 1) If we are attacked first or 2) we receive permission from the UNSC.

As for your link, here you go.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_101004A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.01E.Cheney.Hussein.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html
Click to expand...


That may be true, and you might be correct, but this one time me and my friend went out to this cabin in the woods for a month and got really drunk and sort of horney and wait WHAT THE **** AM I TALKING ABOUT EDIT EDIT
 
Billo_Really said:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_101004A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.01E.Cheney.Hussein.htm
Click to expand...

Yes because truthout.org is a totally unbias site. That's why the front page has nothing but this:

David Michael Green:
Bush Is at
War with Americanism

The New York Times:
Spies, Lies and Wiretaps

Paul Savoy:
Mr. Smith Comes
to Washington

Jonathan Zimmerman:
Alito's Mythical
Feel-Good America

Robert Fisk:
The Problem with Democracy

Ronnie Dugger:
Impeach or Indict
Bush and Cheney

Francoise Chipaux
Afghanistan: From Insurrection
to War of Terror

Juan Cole:
How Do You Like Your
Democracy Now, Mr. Bush?

Gareth Porter:
'Maybe They Just Need to
Have Their Civil War'

John Kerry:
Filibuster Alito

And your 3rd link is to a story about two democratic senators yelling about (big surprise) how much they hate bush. This wasn't an unbais study by a 3rd party, it was a political attack on the bush administration by the usual suspects.

If you want to impress me give me a link that isn't from a left wing mouthpiece site or a report from a couple angry democrats.
 
Billo_Really said:
Read Article 51 of the UN Charter. It allows for only two ways to attack a nation. 1) If we are attacked first or 2) we receive permission from the UNSC.

As for your link, here you go.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_101004A.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.01E.Cheney.Hussein.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html
Click to expand...

There is also a third way and that's for humanitarian reasons, like stop or avoid a genocide

Here is the link for the Oil for Food program: http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm
 
Last edited:
vandree said:
There is also a third way and that's for humanitarian reasons, like stop or avoid a genocide

Here is the link for the Oil for Food program: http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm
Click to expand...

wow there is no way in hell i am reading through 20 megs of pdf files on a 56k connection.

what did the report say overall?
 
Originally posted by vandree
There is also a third way and that's for humanitarian reasons, like stop or avoid a genocide
Click to expand...
That still requires UNSC authorization.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
And your 3rd link is to a story about two democratic senators yelling about (big surprise) how much they hate bush. This wasn't an unbais study by a 3rd party, it was a political attack on the bush administration by the usual suspects.

If you want to impress me give me a link that isn't from a left wing mouthpiece site or a report from a couple angry democrats.
Click to expand...
If you want to play the little bullshit source game, go ahead. If it was on Fox, would it be anymore true or false? If you saw the same thing on C-span, would it be anymore true or false? The validity of an assertion does not soley rest on the source that is making it. If Pol Pot said the earth was round, would that mean it is flat?
 
Billo_Really said:
If you want to play the little bullshit source game, go ahead. If it was on Fox, would it be anymore true or false? If you saw the same thing on C-span, would it be anymore true or false? The validity of an assertion does not soley rest on the source that is making it. If Pol Pot said the earth was round, would that mean it is flat?
Click to expand...

Wow you totally stole that argument from me from a thread I posted in like 3 weeks ago.

And if I want to disprove someone on facts I know to be correct I run a search on the BBC's website or on CNN or some other liberal network. I don't need O'Reilly to make an argument for me.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
Wow you totally stole that argument from me from a thread I posted in like 3 weeks ago.

And if I want to disprove someone on facts I know to be correct I run a search on the BBC's website or on CNN or some other liberal network. I don't need O'Reilly to make an argument for me.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by this....
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
...disprove someone on facts I know to be correct...
Click to expand...
...and would like you to explain a little more in detail, if you don't mind.
 
Billo_Really said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this.......and would like you to explain a little more in detail, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

Ok Ill try to explain it better.

And if I want to disprove someone on facts I know to be correct I run a search on the BBC's website or on CNN or some other liberal network. I don't need O'Reilly to make an argument for me.

I thought maybe reading it in bigger bolder print might clear your mind.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
Ok Ill try to explain it better.

And if I want to disprove someone on facts I know to be correct I run a search on the BBC's website or on CNN or some other liberal network. I don't need O'Reilly to make an argument for me.

I thought maybe reading it in bigger bolder print might clear your mind.
Click to expand...
Shouting at me via the size of your fonts still does not clear up the confusion. Either explain what you mean, or admit your FOS.
 
You referenced liberal news sources to make a liberal point. I stated that if you want to impress me, make your argument citing sources that would normally contradict your party line, as I did about 5 minutes ago in another thread (bbc).

I mentioned O'Reilly because he is a conservative with conservative agendas. I wouldn't use something he says to prove a conservative point because it would be obviously skewed.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
You referenced liberal news sources to make a liberal point. I stated that if you want to impress me, make your argument citing sources that would normally contradict your party line, as I did about 5 minutes ago in another thread (bbc).

I mentioned O'Reilly because he is a conservative with conservative agendas. I wouldn't use something he says to prove a conservative point because it would be obviously skewed.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing that up. Now I can respond. As you can tell by my user name, I don't really care for Mr. O. But I have never attacked someone's source in this forum and I'm not about to start now. If you want to use O' Reilly as a source, I am not going to automatically discount it simply because it comes from him. I agree with about 20-30% of the things he says anyway. I think the rest is garbage. But that is what I have heard him say about subjects that I have already researched. If it is something I haven't, I'm going to do my homework before I respond.

As I stated before, just because O' Reilly says something, it does not mean it is false. Nor does it mean it is true. You have to consider the source to a point. But you don't put all your eggs in that basket when you draw a conclusion. If you've ever studied logic and catagorical arguements, this would be obvious.
 
Billo_Really said:
That still requires UNSC authorization.
Click to expand...


point us to the sentence that specifically states we must have UN authorization to intervene in a humanitarian crisis.
 
Billo_Really said:
Thank you for clearing that up. Now I can respond. As you can tell by my user name, I don't really care for Mr. O. But I have never attacked someone's source in this forum and I'm not about to start now. If you want to use O' Reilly as a source, I am not going to automatically discount it simply because it comes from him. I agree with about 20-30% of the things he says anyway. I think the rest is garbage. But that is what I have heard him say about subjects that I have already researched. If it is something I haven't, I'm going to do my homework before I respond.

As I stated before, just because O' Reilly says something, it does not mean it is false. Nor does it mean it is true. You have to consider the source to a point. But you don't put all your eggs in that basket when you draw a conclusion. If you've ever studied logic and catagorical arguements, this would be obvious.
Click to expand...

Yes. I took a course in ethics and debate in college as did the fifty billion liberal college freshmen on this forum. Wow you know what ad hominem means. You spent 10 minutes reading your textbook. Great.

Sorry if I don't always use obscure latin terms to attack someone's argument.

Sometimes an attack on the author of the argument is justified. If a homeless guy ran up to me on the street and said "THE DRAGONS ARE TRYING TO KILL ME I NEED 50 CENTS TO GET ON THE BUS AND GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE" I wouldn't say hrm.... let me not take his statements in an ad hominem way, just because he's homeless and obviously insane doesn't mean he isn't correct...

You see when you start referencing all these questionable liberal sources for your material I kind of look at you like a crazy homeless person (as I look at liberals in general). I maybe be taking what you say with a grain of salt, but considering the source I would say it is justified.

Better links, from better sources, then we can continue the debate.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
Yes. I took a course in ethics and debate in college as did the fifty billion liberal college freshmen on this forum. Wow you know what ad hominem means. You spent 10 minutes reading your textbook. Great.

Sorry if I don't always use obscure latin terms to attack someone's argument.

Sometimes an attack on the author of the argument is justified. If a homeless guy ran up to me on the street and said "THE DRAGONS ARE TRYING TO KILL ME I NEED 50 CENTS TO GET ON THE BUS AND GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE" I wouldn't say hrm.... let me not take his statements in an ad hominem way, just because he's homeless and obviously insane doesn't mean he isn't correct...

You see when you start referencing all these questionable liberal sources for your material I kind of look at you like a crazy homeless person (as I look at liberals in general). I maybe be taking what you say with a grain of salt, but considering the source I would say it is justified.

Better links, from better sources, then we can continue the debate
Click to expand...
What if that homeless guy just got tire-ironed by a street-gang known as "the Dragon's"? You see, you just don't know until you check it out with your own sources.

I'm sorry, I do not pre-submit my sources for reader approval.
 
Billo_Really said:
What if that homeless guy just got tire-ironed by a street-gang known as "the Dragon's"? You see, you just don't know until you check it out with your own sources.
Click to expand...

The point is hes not getting my 50 cents. GET A JOB YOU GODDAM BUM.
 
Originally Posted by FreeThinker
The point is hes not getting my 50 cents. GET A JOB YOU GODDAM BUM.
Click to expand...
I have a job. I start Wednesday morning. And stop looking at my ass.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
it must feel horrible to continue to lose this debate.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is you think this is a valid rebuttal.
 
Billo_Really said:
The sad thing is you think this is a valid rebuttal.
Click to expand...

its an absolutely legitimate rebuttal to a DODGE like the one you posted.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
its an absolutely legitimate rebuttal to a DODGE like the one you posted.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you DODGE posts. You asked me to give you a link that shows where it says we cannot invade on humanitarian issues. Well, I gave you one and you ran away from it. If the answers scare you so much, then don't ask the questions. Why are you so afraid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom