Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
I have always compared debate to sports, whether tennis, or basketball, or whatever. If I prefer that you hit the ball to my forehand it is very likely that you are going to focus on my backhand. That is the way it should be.
This reminds me of a spanish class I took in college. The professor had given a list of a number of topics that we had to be ready to give a talk on in Spanish. I was ready on all but one, "How I got to school". Prior to the class I heard two kids talking, and one looked my way and said "I wonder how he is going to use that topic to preach the gospel". That was when I knew that would be the topic I would get.
What you "dislike" is really the most profitable aspect of his posts. Innuendo is difficult to deal with, so it gives you a chance to practice.
Everyone loves Isaiah 54:17, but how many really read 54:3-16?
|
I don't think the sports analogy works. If the purpose is to discuss, then being obtuse, argumentative just for the heck of it, contrarian without cause or evidence, or in any other way simply non-discussive is pointless. It is not about getting the ball by the other guy before he can respond. It is about putting the "ball" in front of everyone and considering where the forces that might be working on it will take it.
In other words, it really is nothing like sports. If the goal is truth, then no matter how "true" you may ultimately be proved to be, just ramming it past your "opponent" is contrary to discussion. The truth needs to be shown as true. This is going to sound somewhat postmodern. The truth is not the truth until you show it as true. Actually, the better way of saying it is that the truth will not be accepted as true until it is shown to be true. But until the others see it as true, it doesn't matter that it is actually true, it is seen as not true. No amount of finesse and back-spin changes the lack of showing the truth.
While we can be assured that most LRC-faithfuls would be glad to simply ram something down our throats, they don't win our approval or respect. They just intimidate any other LRC lurkers that might be considering — something that they are not supposed to do.
Harold may actually have something to add to many of the conversations. But he chooses to add nothing. He makes statements with no sound basis for acceptance, or even intentionally irrelevant, and closes the door.
As for the idea of using this as a place to practice your skills of persuasion, they should at least be practiced on something worthy of spending time upon. Since the topics have points, pointless and off-topic comments loose their demand for response. But they are given in a manner that demands a response, and in the process sucks the life out of the existing discussion.
And returning to the beginning. The goal of this forum is open discussion, not trixsy bantering by opponents trying to get one by on the others. You were not really around early enough in the other forum to see Bilbo at his best. I defended him most of the time, but for different reasons. Bilbo represented a kind of LRC mentality that we honestly need to learn to deal with. But he was notorious for asking some side question, or making some kind of side issue out of something that he then used to virtually overrun some threads in a kind of baiting. "Forget the original discussion and get wrapped up in mine. It is pointless and keeps you from dealing with the real issues." Of course he would never say any of that. But it was too evident. For example, he got into serious arguments about what kind of thing PL had actually done with or to any of the women at the LSM in his office. If there was no proof of actual sexual intercourse (I presume those are acceptable words) then he tried to demand that everything about PL and the firestorm around him be dropped or dismissed. So if the discussion was the overstepping of the LSM office (without any discussion of PL's sins) he made it into that, with the goal of derailing the discussion. (And he's probably lurking here and contemplating signing up just to refute this — and then start arguing about what kind of sin it was that they tried to excommunicate him over.)