Well watching a self-identified debate team alumnus at work is instructive. It seems a key debating technique is to isolate and identify a weak argument not made by those on the “other side”, identify that argument as theirs, and then deconstruct it. See for example, Mr Schraub as a case in point, who identifies an argument regarding Iraq, in which the “emphasis on sovereign states” and a “cold war strategy” in dealing with terror in which the recent Mumbai attacks are used as an example.
However in real life such a technique is not actually conducive to any sort of irenic constructive discussions of any sort, alas. The only (actual) argument regarding “sovereign” states regarding the WoT was that a key part of strategy would be to prevent and discourage sovereign states from encouraging or fostering international terror within their boundaries. The idea is that when a sovereign state offers a safe haven (and funds) for organization then the numbers and resources for terrorists grows by order(s) of magnitude and that preventing that then is a priority. Clearly as well, all the instruments available to pressure nations (and to encourage them not to) are to be used, with military force as a last resort.