ok, but why is it that you never elucidate?
"but it's easy to see that you are woefully ignorant of history if you think there wasn't a civil war in Vietnam."
See, that would be easier yet to "rebut" by saying something like, "OK, now it's really clear what a fag you are if you believe there was a civil war in Vietnam." And so on and so forth. Now, would that be a productive discussion, what do you think?
Why wouldn't you try for once to go beyond cutting a loud one in your opponent's direction and then running for cover, and attempt to actually illustrate and prove what you're saying? Just coz you speak in pomposities and pretend that your grave overdramatic questions are rhetorical, doesn't make them actually so. Just coz you hint that your opponent's view is absurd, doen't make anything absurd. You're like a kid, really.
OK, so you don't think he's right, fine, then where are your objections? Argue, damn it. Show us that there was a civil war there. Don't just announce -- show it, prove, illustrate.