This guy hits it on the head: You aren't allowed to debate the facts or the details - you're forced to defend your motives. Suppose that someone says, "The war in Iraq has made us safer from terrorism." You would disagree. A type C argument would be to suggest that in fact the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism. One view might be that if we had backed down, we would have had broader support in the world and more resources to deal with terrorism elsewhere. It is a difficult question to settle empirically, but we can have a reasonable argument. A type M argument would be to write, as you did on September 9, that, "It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election." http://www.techcentralstation.com/100703B.html