smooth

Does anyone else know of a precedent in debating that requires opposing members to make each other's case for them?


The irony, of course, is that the discussion quickly degenerated into an argument over whethr host is credible or not...which occurs often when he posts. Very rarely do people engage with the issue at hand.
Specifically, is the premise that host is not credible and therefore, we ought not to believe that people knew that this disaster could occur?
Or that we should not believe that the president stated, contrary to the public record, no one thought this could happen?

Let's just agree that host is a big fat liar for the sake of the thread
Does anyone dispute that:

a) publicly and easily available evidence exists that officials knew this disaster was a question of when, not if
b) the president claimed in his speech that no one conceived this disaster would occur

if you can not dispute those two premises, should we conclude the president lied?
If not, why not?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman