Sherman a Hero or a Terorist general?

If nobody figured it out yet, that's one of my favorite lines to quote out of context from Star Wars. But Oppie is pretty old; he's barely got any hair left on his head.


NOW GET BACK TO TOPIC!!!

Shut up Stuart, dont make me come over there.

I would love to see you try.

See what? Go over to Stuart's house? We live like 5 miles from each other, and I've beat him at tackle football before. So, yah, if Stuart has a really long range webcam, maybe you can see me try. (And succedd)

We've never played tackle before Oppie. Because you're too lightweight.

Lightweight. Only slightly. But you know Stuart, they I run about 100 miles an hour. If I hit you at that speed then BOOM! Bye bye Stuart.

I beat you at a footrace, so, so much for that.

Yeah, I was kecka tired that day, odnt use circumstance to prove your point Stuart.

Topic: Sherman.
Off topic:Running races.

Civility_C wrote:

Topic: Sherman.
Off topic:Running races.

It was Stuart!!!

Getting back on topic, and responding to the question posed in the topic name, I think we can safely say from the sited evidence that Sherman WAS in fact a terrorist general.

And I say, you a wrong. Why? because I can say so. lol.

Good logic! I think you could win any debate with those arguments.

Riiiiight..... So far, the only evidence given has been proof that Sherman did commit war crimes. I'll sit back now and wait for any evidence to be sited to the contrary. Till then, don't waste your breath trying to find flaws in solid, unbiased facts.

What have I said before? No one can be "unbiast" there is no such thing...

That's where you're wrong Civ. I might have been biased in my reasons for posting the evidence, but in no way is the transcript biased to suit either side, its only purpose is to show events as they happened. That is why there are a number of quotes from both parties involved.

Hmmm wrong? How do you know that the information was not bias huh???

If you would read my post, I said that the transcript contains quotes from both sides, so you can hardly say it's biased.

I did read your post.

well, then I'm assuming that you just missed that part.

No I read it. ALL off it.

Well, do you agree that it can't be wholly biased when the transcript includes quotes from both sides and doesn't include any opinions (outside of those expressed in quotes) or assumptions?

I do agree with Civ on the fact that it could have been biased, regardless of who put into it. Both sides can still be biased Stuart. But I do agree with you that there can be unbiaased statements, all you have to do is stick to the truth and not deviate because of persanol oppinion or assumption based on a oppinion.

Cherio,

Dear debaters
Not only are you getting off topic.... But I disagree with the statement that there are unbiased statements. Lets say that I write a COMPLETELY true history book... Even if this book is true I will have let some facts out... It's like this, Jeb. I write a history book on the war and it is all true.... but 'I can leave out the facts of Shermans march and you couldn't call my book untrue... But it would be biased.

Thank you! Thats what I've been trying to tell these people!