Palmerston had anti American sympathies.

Using another debate as an example: Now I have made the point I think that my opponent used this http://www.finitesite.com... to produce this http://www.debate.org... without telling anybody. so What? One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what? What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table. Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time. It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what? Taking a look at that Michael Coren buffoon we can easily see so what. He's the buffoon on the right. The guy on the left is the one that is going to debate me. Now if I don't know about this clip I won't see the buffoon on the right who lays it all out for me. Debating him would be a dream come true. He is translating the smooth academic language Ross McKitrick is speaking but does not practice into the hysterical stuff that Joe Sixpack will hear on talk hysteriadio. Any scientist would address Mann's paper by looking at it and not what was said about it. Where does anyone say anything about what Mann says about Man's (or Mann's for that matter) contribution to global warming? That would be critical if you are arguing, as they are, that the value is "look at all the money we are spending on global warming because of bad science." Well we are not spending money to address natural global warming. More importantly the buffoon on the right, Michael Coren, whom I have never heard of and now I see why, exposed the whole agenda of piecemeal attack. It is like the old Cisco Kid radio show where one bad guy starts confessing and the other bad guy says, "Shut up you fool!" He forgot to explain that this whole agenda of piecemeal attack is bad science. Michael Coren, who we may think of as a reincarnation of Wally George, thinks it is OK and spills the beans. Disregarding for the moment the remarkable similarity between the title of the YouTube post and my opponent's premise, aand that it's pretty clear he was pretty dishonest but that's not the worst of it. If all I have is the arguments of the guy on the left, the only thing I have to go on is a valueless argument. Serious debaters have long since left all three of these buffoons, and online debating itself, in the dirt with the simple requirement that you need to attach some value to your argument. Now we see why. Because it tells where you are going with this argument. Now go back to "So What." Keep reading until you get it. But there's more. A court of law would have to adjourn in order to properly address the demand to restrict the scope of the debate since prolonged laughter is not allowed in court. "Your honor I would like to address the damages I have suffered and not what I have caused." There's a lot more but, as I point out, what would be the value of it? But I would certainly like to find out whether my opponent's agenda is Zionist. I am not saying it is but it is plausible. Lord Palmerston proposed using Jewish money to prop up the failing Ottoman. It was his job, not his "sentiment." Whatever is going to come in down the road we need to know it now.