Thanks for the info
...I didn't know Brandi was Khasim :-)
>>This is, of course, quite effective as a debating tactic.
I'm not so sure. I mean christ......
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=37680|Link ]
>>#5. Yes, I do believe that Mike lies. Why discuss/debate with someone who lies?
I mean this is pretty weak stuff...isn't it?
Would this pass muster in ANY academic/professional setting?
I don't think so. Maybe that's not what the expectations are
here...not really sure.
I like to learn from the people here.
(I've said before that more neuron-firing goes on in here than in
my entire company.....okay perhaps a bit unfair).
But it seems that to maximise learning...you have to drop the concept
of "WINNING" as the yardstick which measures all contributions.
If your sole (or primary) goal is to find your opponent's weakest argument, or
assign one to him, I'm inclined to think that learning is suspended.
(Yeah been a culprit).
