Do you ever notice that when we and other debaters of all political persuasions and national preferences have an argument, we often resort to the 'if one faction can do this, why can't our preferred side do the same'? Or we and our debating opponents will say 'If there are others doing the same, why is our preferred side being picked on?' Even diplomats and rulers use the same tactic to win their argument.
For example, when Israel backers (of which I am a quiet participant) argue against the 'Right to Return' because they know it will obliterate the Jewish State with several million 'refugees' and their descendents, they say "When all the Arab nations were formed, they kicked out thousands of Jews and they don't ask for a Right for Return. Why is Israel the only one being targetted?"
And when Arab League rulers were trying to divert attention away from Iraq's WMD program and its failure to comply with successive UN resolutions, they try to say 'Why isn't Israel being made to comply with resolutions made declared before Iraq was singled out?" Now the Iranians are also crying the same demand when scrutinised over their dubious nuclear ambitions.
When Leftists want to denounce the US for striking back at AQ in Afghanistan, some called the war there 'racist'. I faced this accusation and questioned it. The guy who made this remark declared, "Why didn't America bomb Northern Ireland? Is it becoz they are white?" Other leftist twits have asked why the US didn't destroy Tim McVeigh's home state- as if ALL enemies have to be treated 'equally' to prove some kind of non discrmination!!!!!
Finally, when defending the majority US armed forces who have been stained by the Abu Ghraib abuses, we pro military folks tell the accusers, "For god's sake, other countries do worse as a matter of policy and you want to call the US Army barbaric for what a renegade minority did?"
Surely there are other ways to win a debate without resorting to this tactic? However I don't believe that's entirely possible becoz comparing and contrasting is often integral to debate and judgement.
|