The worst debate team captain would say "because" and that's it.

I've got a bag of pumpkin seeds that I've been nursing for several months now, and I just dropped it and spilled a bunch. Probably enough for a month if I kept at it the same pace. So that sucks a lot. I hate that kind of waste- food waste I guess. Frustrating.

An old friend of mine tends to post links to articles from the National Post and I checked out a couple this morning. One was about free speech and how it is only a protected right for left wing speakers, and the other was about denouncing the strategy of appeasement towards North Korea instead of actually punishing their policies/behaviour.

I was surprised with how much I didn't agree with the articles. It's one thing for me to read this and just have a different opinion, or maybe a preferred side of an argument while still seeing what they're saying... but I am really not on board with what this guy is writing. I can't even say "you've got an interesting point there".

A useful tool for evaluating an article is the comment section. You see the loud-spoken counter arguments, pointing out errors, which then get addressed by another poster, or maybe the original writer too, why not, and you get SOMETHING akin to two sides to the story. This kind of debate was eerily lacking on the National Post site.

This can either be indicative of an apathy from the readership, or else the active subversion of the dissenting voice. Let's say it is merely apathy (simplest explanation)- that still means your work is missing something.

Let's get into something approximating specifics (I say that because I'm not actually going to find the article again to quote verbatim- you can take any statement I make on faith, or not):

The article on North Korea talks about how it's recent activity is part of a cycle of agression, tactics used to extort their livelihood. And the world at large seems to always capitulate to the demands of North Korea, and things settle down for a bit until they want more aid.

And the writer says "that's bad."

Yes, I've simplified it, but that's essentially all he's saying- what everyone already knows. That rewarding North Korea for it's actions isn't going to accomplish anything, and instead the world should try actually punishing them.

The impression I got was that he meant using military force, but maybe he means through harsher diplomatic means, cutting off aid and the like. But I'm pretty sure the writer is referring to military force.

Actually, I don't necessarily have a problem with what he's written thus far, this could be a fine START to a piece. The problem I have with his article is that it doesn't go on to ask WHY these methods are being used, to actually examine the situation, and maybe THEN give a reasoned suggestion of where to go from there.

Though I already knew on one level why the world at large favours, for lack of a better term, the appeasement strategy, a two minute bit on todays "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" (a fake news show, as they'll be the first to remind you)gave an example of why the world 'gives in' to North Korea- to avoid a protracted war that actually morphs into a microcosmic battle between the powers of China and the United States with devastating worldwide consequences.

Maybe you disagree, that scenario will not be the end result of military action.

Why not?

What does happen next?

Why is that better or worse than an alternative?

I'm not asking you to be right, or to have all the answers, but man- if you're going to write an article, make it a full article. At least TRY to sway me to your side.