Count me unimpressed: he defines 'rogue' very selectively, and avoids defining 'rogue state', a term that has a meaning completely different from what he would like it to mean. Despite what he says, the term 'rogue state' will never, ever have a positive connotation.
By his own admission, he attempts to change the nature of the debate from one about politics to one about semantics, and then attempts to out-pander his opponent. Sure, he probably deserves to win the debate, but it's hardly a revolutionary debate strategy to take what is essentially an unwinnable position and attempt to twist the question to argue for, rather than against, the crux of your opponent's argument.
|