Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:10:05 EDT
In a message dated 3/23/2007 4:23:24 AM Central Standard Time, peter AT qaya.org
writes:
> > ...
> > Several times when dealing with people on this list with whom I
> > disagree, I make my point, show what I think is a flaw in the other's
> > position, and if he does not answer them, just ignore him. ...
>
> If there is no further answer, I ignore the person. If the person
> repeats a logical or factual error, perhaps in a rather different form,
> I repeat my objection. I don't want the other person to win the argument
> by mere repetition. Who was it who said that a lie repeated often enough
> becomes the truth?
>
Capt. Kirk,
Is this the way the college debate team argued their points of view, by just
ignoring the opposing team? Maybe the other person has a valid argument,
just
because he differs from you doesn't make him wrong, does it?
Doug.
Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
Tejas Valley
San Antonio, Texas </HTML>
Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
, (continued)