Next issue - the one that caused the subsequent issues.
Saying someone has made a strawman argument is saying they have made an unethical argument so HOW can anyone not see that it is calling the person unethical?????????????????????????????????
Bill’s father was an extemporaneous speaking and debating coach, and he has some state and national champions in his family so this fact would be common knowledge in his family.
Rick, I will acknowledge your perception. Perceptions are important. Perceptions drive actions.
However I disagree with your opinion. Others have similarly stated that they disagree, and why.
We are at an impasse on this. Figuratively speaking, you have me scratching my head on this one.
For the very reason that you say I should know better, I am saying that I am firm with my convictions.
Debating is no different than any other sport, Rick. Debate contests and extemporaneous speaking contests are all intellectual exercises designed to enlighten us. In debating contests, sometimes you are forced to take a position that you don't necessarily ascribe to. Then the goal is to "win" and to work within the rules of the contest to do so.
Let's take the game of basketball. Suppose it's a close game. Shaq goes up for a layup. I know if I do nothing, he'll jam the ball in with about 99% certainty (or more). So I may elect instead to engage in a foul to stop him from doing so, because I know that the guy can't buy a free throw to save his arse. With Shaq, I may in fact have to commit a "hard" foul because the man is so bloody big and I don't want to give him the two plus a chance for him to get lucky and make it a 3-point play.
I made a foul. The ref calls it. Shaq attempts to make free throws.
Debating is like that. I've participated in discussions in debating societies in various venues where people go back and forth in such fashion. In the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society, sometimes they don't even bother to keep score. They just get around on a Friday night, drink beer, pick a topic, and debate. People go back and forth. People try to win. People do what they do to win.
Van is a competitive individual, as am I. In case you hadn't noticed, he's also highly intelligent. The man can hold his own in 2 different languages, and is a subject matter expert in several venues.
Van likes to win. I like to win. Sometimes he and I go back and forth the way we do just because we like to win and "beat" the other. And in my book if Van commits a "foul", I see it as part of the game. And when it comes to this whole debating thing, often we ALL commit "fouls" and don't even know it.
But hell... In this previous discussion that has been the topic of so much controversy, my attitude all along has been the following - no blood, no foul.
I try not to take discussions on these forums personally. Sometimes we do, and it's unfortunate when it happens. Most of the time we don't need to.
I "called" Van on a debating tactic. That's it. Simple. Heck, I even complimented him on it. I told him he was good at it!
From the standpoint of someone who has seen debating, I see him as a highly skilled individual who likes to win.
I don't see ANYTHING wrong with that.
I don't see, nor did I intend any attack on character, honor, etc., etc.
If folks could just let such discussions go on, we might learn something. That is the goal all along. I had no agenda in that thread other than to challenge some "conventional" thinking. That's what Van does all the time. In imitating him, I flatter him.
I don't know if Van or others knowingly or unknowingly commit various faux pas
in their discussions. But it's fair game for us to call something when we see it, and move on. No emotion need be applied.