In viewing some of your other posts on this thread, I would like to offer a suggestion in a manner that might be a little less confrontational. We have, as we often do, devolved to the level of deutero-debate in this thread. In other words, rather than debating the point, we are debating the way we debate. But I'd like to go with that for a second because it may be instructive for both of us.
As I see it, the basic concern you have with presenting your arguments is that you want to present your arguments in a style with which you are comfortable and familiar. That's perfectly reasonable. I have been taken to task for my long, rambling posts and irrational fear of paragraph breaks. But that's how I debate. I lose a lot of potential audience that way, but I live with it. I do, however, try to at least be aware of these shortcomings and amend them to an extent.
You have also implied that one of your purposes is to persuade. I view debate in a different manner. I like the idea of persuading people, because on a basic level I want the world to agree with me. I think that is a basic human trait, more prominent in some than in others, but present in all of us. That's ego. If I think it, it must be so, otherwise I'm wrong and therefore inferior. But my view of debate is that I am here to teach and to learn. I am less interested in persuading folks than I am in getting people to see another perspective and opening my own mind to the same opportunity. If at the end of the day we both walk away with the same basic stance on issues, but we have come to a better understanding of those who see the world differently, I think we have accomplished something big. I am convinced that most of the world's problems can be resolved by recognizing where difference lie and WHY they exist rather than assuming that behaviors with which we disagree are inherently evil. If we understand each others legitimate concerns, we can begin to try to craft solutions that give equal gravitas to both sides. I am a firm believer in compromise, and one of the worst traits of partisan politics is that each side views compromise as defeat. This makes each side resent the other, and adds tension to the issue without the release valve that compromise gives.
You have stated that rhetoric is persuasive. It certainly can be. But hostile, profane rhetoric is almost never so. Specific to your rhetorical devices, when you call American soldiers "baby killers" you aren't going to persuade anyone of anything. That term will appeal only to a very limited group of people who already share your opinion. Most others will simply dismiss it out of hand - and with it, your credibility. Further, aside from the offense many will take at it in general, many will respond with defensiveness. That means that any chance you have of persuading those who might otherwise see merit in your point is negated by the natural response to your presentation. Your technique works against persuasion instead of for it.
Of course you are not going to persuade folks like me that the American army is terrible. I have a better understanding of the Army, on the one hand, and a natural prejudice toward it on the other. So vile rhetorical devices lose you little in terms of persuasion with me. But those to whom the issue does not hit as close to home could be persuaded with a softer, more reasonable tone. But they will likely reject direct attacks using language like you use because the technique identifies you as a bigot - whether or not that accusation is warranted.
Further, what is it exactly that you are trying to persuade people to think? Are you aiming to make those you address think of the American army as a bunch of baby killing rapist thugs? That's a pretty sad thing. Effectively, that would mean you are just trying to get people to hate. It might turn out that the hatred is warranted, but so what? If your specific intention is to rally an actual military force to take on the American army, then you are simply using the same technique soldiers do when we use terms like "Jap" "Kraut" or "Raghead." You are employing the same rhetorical devices that the proponents of segregation used when they referred to Dr, King as "Martin Luther Coon." You are dehumanizing a group of people to make it easier to hate them - and thereby suppress any sense of decency that might prevent atrocities against them. This is how soldiers get to Abu Ghraib or My Lai and Muslims get to the World Trade Center.
I would bet, however, that you are not trying to do that at all, but rather you are trying to persuade people that US world policy in general, and current military operations in the middle east, are illegal or at least immoral. There are an awful lot of people who agree with that, and the number is growing every day. The specific action that would address that immorality would be a withdrawal from Iraq and a change in US attitudes and policies towards the middle east and the world in general. You won't persuade anyone of that when you lose your audience up front, but you can through skillful application of appropriate rhetorical devices actually move closer toward that goal. "Baby killers" kills your credibility. You will persuade nobody with that technique, no matter how correct your opinion on the subject may be.
But take it a step further. If we accept your opinion (and I don't) that US policy in the middle east is wrong, the correct action would have been to prevent the invasion from ever happening in the first place. There were many on your side of the issue trying to do just that before the war in Iraq began. Why did nobody listen to them? Because they were doing things like calling for a million Mogadishus. They were screaming like banshees about "baby killers." They were rallying to bring back the Vietnam protest days. But those protestors have been discredited in most of mainstream America. The perspective of history has shown us that, while US involvement in Vietnam was questionable at best and evil at worst, vilifying the soldiers who served there was absolutely the wrong thing to do. We also recognize that a lot of the rhetoric the peace movement used back then was just as full of AMBE as what the government was telling us. It has made us have a common distrust of idiots waving signs and trashing our soldiers. I saw a woefully small peace rally on our court square before the invasion. They were waving signs whining about US aggression and asking us to honk to show support. I leaned out of my window and shouted to them "You are irrelevent." They were, and they deserved to be.
Now these same forces have learned a little about appropriate techniques. They now argue that soldiers should NOT be vilified. They suggest that supporting the troops should mean getting them out of harm's way. I've even seen a brilliant little rhetorical device - a bumper sticker that says "love the soldier, hate the war." It mirrors perfectly the "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy that the right understands (intentional so, of course). It separates righteous anger about US policy from irrational hatred of the people tasked to carry out that policy. A whole lot of people will respond favorably to that kind of argument. It lends credibility and relevence to the person making the point. It demonstrates an ability to reason and consider other points of view. It shows the appropriate level of respect for the humanity of soldiers, without compromising the objection to US policy. It breaks through defensiveness and appeals to rational thought rather than emotion. In short, it is persuasive. And the best part is, to come up with such an idea, at least some degree of open-minded consideration of the other side was necessary, even if it was only in considering how to appeal to them. It's a start.
My point is that the language you choose to use WILL persuade people, but not necessarily in the manner you hope. David Duke probably made some valid points about the way racial politics has swung too far in the other direction, but nobody is going to take him seriously. Pat Robertson may be a voice crying in the wilderness about the impending destruction of America like Israel was destroyed for turning its back on God, but who's going to listen to him? They have credibility only for those who already buy their skewed world view. To anyone else, they are irrelevent.
So what is your goal, Michael? Is it to persuade people to change their minds about US policy? Then attack US policy. That's an extension of the objection to ad hominem attack in debate. Focus on the issue, not the people.
But is your goal to persuade people that US soldiers are evil baby killers, then go ahead and continue the rhetoric to that effect. Just recognize that people who think will reject that as bigotry out of hand. I reject out of hand sarcastic references to Islam as the "Religion of Peace" because I recognize those as an appeal to reject Islam, rather than an appeal to reject Islamic terrorists. That's a damned important distinction.
Bottom line: I suggest you consider the effect your choice of rhetorical device has on your credibiliy and ability to persuade. Even if your only real goal in this forum is pleasant exchange of views, a more careful approach to rhetorical choice can facilitate that aim without leading to less pleasant exchange of insults.
For the record, it is clear that you are at least giving my posts due consideration in spite of their somewhat ad hominem nature. I acknowlege and appreciate that.
