I'm 17
.
The problem with arguing about things like the war on Iraq is that no matter how many sources are put forth, nobody will ever change their opinion.
Most of the time I've said things they were opinion based and I stated that they were opinion based. I don't post things as facts if I don't know them for sure. But even if I post what I think or my two cents (or if anyone else does it for that matter) people persist on tearing them apart.
I'd like you to notice that I do not attempt to "destroy" The Strangler's views or opinions. I respect his right to have them regardless of whether or not I agree with them. But if I say something about it me not believing so many civilians should have died, I get attacked.
Now, in arguments about the war on Iraq, the people arguing break down into two groups:
1. People who support the war
2. People who oppose the war
Nobody can win an argument because when it comes to the war on iraq virtually any argument is opinion based.
Example: "The Iraq war is good because Saddam was a bad guy."
"No, it is bad because civilians are dying."
These aren't facts. They are opinions. When it comes to these arguments, people from group 1 completely disregard anything anybody from group 2 has to say and vise versa. It's a lot like arguing about religion.
That's why nobody can win these arguments.
When I talk about Iraq, I won't try to take your opinions and rip them to shreds. I will only offer my opinion. I won't ask for sources and I won't argue about semantics.
In these debates people will have varying opinions.You should respect them rather than attack them.