(urth) 5HC

[Gerry Quinn]

On 05/09/2014 14:15, António Pedro Marques wrote:
> Gerry Quinn wrote (05-09-2014 11:20):
>>
>> On 04/09/2014 15:46, Lee wrote:
>>>> Richard Simon: I begin to weary of this...
>>> There are various tactics and strategies to win a debate. One is
>>> to wear down your opponent with stubbornness and win by attrition.
>>> Last word wins?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps there should be a rule in debate that logical objections to a 
>> thesis
>> become invalid when the proponent tires of having them pointed out
>
> Logival objections take the form "That leads to contradiction" or 
> "Allowing that allows anything (so in what way is *that* better than 
> the alternatives)", not "I find that contrived".

I do not disagree


> More to the point, any proposition worth discussing offers material 
> for a barrage of objections. 

Here I do disagree.  On the contrary, the existence of a host of obvious 
objections suggests, surely, that a proposition is highly questionable?  
It indicates that the proposition is poorly aligned to the contents of 
the text, or that Wolfe has blundered and allowed his text to contain 
numerous elements that contradict an intended interpretation.  (In the 
latter case, one would only be able to reasonably assert such an 
interpretation by pointing to substantial specific indications that the 
proposition is nevertheless, what he intended.)


> It's part of the social contract not to abuse that potential, but not 
> all seem to realise that unless they're on the receiving end. I blame 
> the socialists.
>

Even to note the objections is problematic?

- Gerry Quinn