[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by octothorp

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.

That's exactly what I thought. The context of a word is always going to be different from the word's actual definition. To argue a point based on that doesn't really do much to get at the core of an issue and is a complete waste of time.