Originally Posted by machievelli
looking at Silent Scope and I, who is the better debater by your 'criteria'?
My first impression was you so far.
Some of SilentScope's assertions have included that we should've stayed to fight wars like Vietnam, that we could win any war with the right price, the advocacy of standard high school history books, that a couple cities isn't too big a price in a war. You had logical enough responses to them (though my opinion might be biased by how I disagree with all those assertions).
I can put your arguments into the proper format if you want something more detailed, but my opinion probably wouldn't be that different.