[eDebate] ans Korcok

Ryan Bach solistus
Wed Aug 8 17:57:47 CDT 2007


Dude, I misinterpreted a pretty misleading statement on your fucking source.  The last line (which I included in my original quote that you took several posts to reply to, by the way) doesn't clear up shit.  It says: "In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq."  That does not clear up ambiguity about what specific deaths count as being attributed to military intervention.  Look, I've already conceded your interpretation based on the quote you found from another page on the site.  You and AC agreed on a source, so I checked their methodology and saw the bit about the US or an ally pulling the trigger.  Claiming that this mistake makes me a dishonest ideologue and invalidates my other arguments is a pathetic cop out... Especially when you never refute my observations about your ideological bias.

Also, there was nothing "ideological" about my mistake.  I quoted the paragraph that I found for you and explained why I thought that meant they were excluding non-US-caused deaths.  There is nothing ideological about seeing: "The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger" and taking it at face value.  I've already conceded that you are right and I would have figured that out if I had done more reading.  It is fucking ridiculous that you cannot accept this as an honest mistake.

If you don't want to debate now that I've made a bunch of arguments that totally undermine your position, that's fine.  I've definitely had rounds where I felt like giving up when I knew I lost.  Just don't make lame excuses for your argumentative laziness.  You have not provided a single answer to the fact that EIGHT MILLION ARE HOMELESS thanks to our invasion.  You have not provided a single answer to the fact that a 3% gain in a nationwide statistic when we control less than half of the capital is meaningless.  You have not provided a single answer to the fact that the IraqBodyCount numbers only include civilians.  If I took your standard and blew you off after your first mistake, I would have stopped posting a long time ago.  Nobody is fooled by your attempt to take the high road when you are the one refusing to engage in meaningful debate.

Your argument that my mistake interpreting someone else's evidence - that YOU took a while to respond to and that I conceded after you finally did respond - invalidates all my other claims is even more absurd than your attempts to defend the invasion.

There is an "excuse for this."  I made a fucking mistake.  I misread your source.  You pointed this out, and I conceded that you were right.  What there is no excuse for is your refusal to answer arguments I've been making post after post about the humanitarian crisis, your fuzzy math, etc.  Unlike you, I have not ducked out of uncomfortable arguments.

I will give you one more chance to answer the several serious arguments you have been conveniently ignoring.  If you are so certain that I am an ideological hack and you are an objective thinker, just fucking answer them.  If your claims about my debate skills are true, it should be pretty easy to refute my claims, right?  If you still refuse to, or keep wasting my vacation time with asinine posts like this last one, then the only conclusion I can reasonably come to is that you have no responses and are putting on a circus show to distract everyone from that fact.

Since it's been so long since you even mentioned any of them in passing, I'll repost the summary of the arguments you have been dropping:


Debate 1: 

1) Your numbers are still ideological bullshit. There is no 
warranted justification for including the events immediately 
following GW1. Questions of US culpability in Iraq/Iran and GW1 
aside, there is no reason to believe that the death tolls from Anfar 
or the Marsh Arab campaign would be likely to have recurred from 
March 2003 - August 2007. Your only attempts at justifying these 
claims were appeals to your personal beliefs and hypotheticals with 
many, many unwarranted claims (lifting sanctions -> ? -> ? -> ... -> 
another mass murder campaign, saddam's death -> ? -> uday and qussay 
taking control -> ? -> ? -> ... -> another mass murder campaign). 

2) The IraqBodyCount numbers explicitly exclude all non-civilian 
deaths. However many insurgents have died needs to be added to the 
total. 

3) cross-apply the difficulty of accurate counting. IraqBodyCount is 
based on deaths that have been independently verified by multiple 
sources. The total is undoubtedly higher; the question is, how much 
higher? 

Debate 2: 

1) The humanitarian crisis you haven't touched on much (at all?) will 
almost certainly more than erase the 1.91 year gain you claim. 

2) a 3% gain on a statistic that requires knowledge of every death 
and the age of the deceased to be perfectly accurate in a country 
where we only control 40% of the capital is really sketchy. It's not 
even clear there is a gain now for the crisis to erase. 

Relevant to both debates: 

1) You haven't answered the utilitarian calculus question: how many 
people left homeless and without food, water, medicine, etc. is equal 
to 1 death? It would have to be hundreds for the body count margins 
you claim to outweigh the crisis. 




More information about the Mailman mailing list