Let's set some terms for debate

I'll let Plumpy's Ghost do the heavy lifting today and just post a quick comment. One thing that has become extremely prevalent in the past few years is the argument put forth in bad faith. If you make an argument that you know is fallacious at best and false at worst just for the purpose of steering the debate away from a particular area that you know to be your weak spot then you are being dishonest, even if you manage to avoid actually lying. This can be seen in everything from the Swift Boat cowards to the brouhaha about Pelosi's new plane. Orwell said it very well when he compared these tactics to someone accusing their opponent in a chess match of adultery.

The thing that gets me is that people who perpetrate this nonsense often believe that the other side is equally unscrupulous. That's why you have people who will accuse anyone who's against the war of hating America or thinking Bush is evil. So for the record, I don't think Bush is evil, and he's probably not even a bad man, but he's in over his head the same way I would be if someone tried to put me in the cockpit of an F-22. I'll add also that I won't accuse anyone on either side of the aisle of actually desiring the deaths of American soldiers, and I would appreciate it if people would refrain from accusing me (or people who share my view of the war) of supporting the enemy or any of that nonsense. Name calling and distraction tactics won't ever win an argument, but they can delay discussion of the actual substance long enough for more people to die and crucial windows of opportunity to be lost, and that's something that we can all agree ought to be avoided.