Quote:
Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder
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.
|
Dude, what he did was a much better way to get to the point of the issue than I'm sure the "Israel isn't a rouge state" side did.
Some people just don't get satire I suppose.
Do you honestly think this guy was just trying to win the debate? I'm sure if he wanted to he could have come up with any number of examples that would support the accepted definition of Rouge State.
What he did was use a different definition of Rouge State to show that Israel does not in fact fit the standard definition, and he made a very good point while he was at it.
This debate was initiated by a pro Iranian journalist, and what this guy did was use the "Pro" side to completely discredit what the rest of the pro (read anti-Israel) side were most likely spewing.
You and Octorthorp are the ones who are too tied up in semantics. You're focusing on the literal message of his speach, and completely ignoring the undertones and spirit with which it is being delivered, which in this case, is the much more important part of his speach.
And he probably won the debate too.