see debate pics!

Shift of Opinion Survey
Olson - Palmeri Debate Results

Note: On April 28, 2004 UW Oshkosh professors Greg Olson and Tony Palmeri debated the following resolution: "That the United States won the war in Vietnam." Palmeri supported the resolution, using essentially the arguments that appear in the May edition of his Media Rants column. The audience of 119 were asked to fill out a survey before the debate and after. Below are the results.

Resolution: Resolved, that the United States won the war in Vietnam.

Before the debate: With regards to the above resolution, do you….

Total-119

After the debate: With regards to the above resolution, do you ……

Total-119

Tony Palmeri at debate	Debate Audience gathering on April 28, 2004 in UW Oshkosh Clow 101

The audience was also asked to list what it considered to be the "compelling arguments" of each speaker:

Palmeri

• The closing argument was filled with an emotional appeal that was very well constructed.
• The war was not over in terms of the embargo
• RICE (regime change, infrastructure destruction, civilian casualities, economic devastation) Criteria (overwhelmingly mentioned)
• That we achieved the goals that we set out to do.
• What the US's main goals were - avoid domino effect, Vietnam market economies.
• You don't always need to win 100%
• We turned around their government and did make some positive changes.
• How can the massive destruction suffered equal winning the war.
• Embargo not lifted.
• The fact that we consider the war a loss, because of the fact we lost morally doesn't mean that it was a loss.
• We succeeded at achieving our goals.
• The comparison to Bill Gates, just because we didn't achieve 100%, doesn't mean we didn't win. (overwhelmingly mentioned)
• Scholars can be wrong - don't accept the status quo
• The number of casualties - the goals was met.
• More suffering. No domino effect
• We need to admit it so we can become more compassionate nation
• A lot of pathos
• More destruction was done to Vietnam as a nation
• U.S. didn't lose nearly as much as Vietnam did.
• The question was not a moral one.
• Stellar point - the fact the war was over in 1993
• U.S. achieve main goals and won even though we didn't completely dominate
• All were good arguments, but I don't think either side won.
• The measurement of lives
• Levels of mass destruction defines "winning" in a novel way
• The fact that the embargo is an act of war and the civilian casualties.
• Millions casualties
• Lasted 20 years after the war "ended"
• Market reforms as a result of the embargo
• Embargo as a form of war (definition)
• That although our actions were very immoral, we did succeed in stopping communism from spreading.
• That even though most agree we lost that doesn't make it true. Those scholars/historians could be wrong.
• Claiming scholars/historians are not always right.
• Clearly defined hardships not felt by U.S., Olson did not directly refute these. The arguments that embargo is an act of war not supported well, although intriguing.
• He gave a lot of ideas not typically thought about when talking about this topic
• We lost morally, U.S. sore losers
• Vietnam had more causalities (many more) than the U.S,

Olson

• Duck analogy
• Cambodia slaughter and the Killing Fields
• That the north and south were reunited
• The nation that wins a war is the nation that achieves or succeeds in its objectives.
• Many journalists and historians agree that we lost the war.
• Right when the war ended Vietnam was not a market economy
• The scholars all say so.
• The consensus of public and scholarly opinion
• The majority believes we lost including scholars and historians. I feel that is where all his assurance is coming from.
• No one won, no one lost, so no one won - the US didn't win
• Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
• If almost everyone says no one won the war, then US did not win.
• The evidence presented from History
• We didn't succeed in our objectives
• Good use of Homer
• Just because one side loses doesn't mean the other side did
• The video
• U.S. didn't achieve goal of unified country (preserving South Vietnam)
• That Vietnam's goal was to become unified - and they did - our goal was to prevent this and we failed. Our goal was to develop allies of South Korea and we failed
• Unification happened anyway.
• Giving the fact that U.S. didn't meet its goals - but analogies are weakest form of argument - straight from Olson
• Vote negative if you are not sure
• End of the tunnel - "we left the war"
• How we left the war
• Majority believed it was wrong
• Most of what he said was compelling, especially showing the video.
• His general understanding was much more in-depth.
• The sources of information that linked up his arguments.
• The number of facts - supportive quotes
• Everything Olson said
• Presented well, with evidence and clear definition that the status quo majority agrees, for myriad reasons, that war was lost.
• Using quotes to go along with his duck analogy
• If no one won the war then Vietnam really won
• The fact that we did not meet all of our goals because we did not preserve South Vietnam.
• If we nuke Baghdad tomorrow, are we the winners?
• We won by killing civilians??
• More to a war than just civilian casualties, shouldn't base that on who won the war
• The US didn't in fact prevent communism from taking control of S. Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia.
• Ho Chi Mihn did indeed accomplish his goals, initially…however, because of the embargo, eventually these initial goals were defeated.
• It seems that a main argument between the affirmative and negative was about the definition of the word "war." Embargoes and sanctions or just military-style fighting.
• Olson's argument about North Vietnam taking over the capital 2 years later.
  

Return to TonyPalmeri.Com