Brumsen's method, IMO, is much more insidious, and therefore much harder to counterpoint.
Agreed. I try to cut Turbonium some slack because I think he really doesn't know any other way of debating than what he follows here. That doesn't mean I let him get away with it, but I'm not going to remark on why he argues that way.
Brumsen has no such sympathy: he purports to be well-qualified in the arts associated with making and refuting points. That he obfuscates and evades is therefore likely to be calculated rather than by default. I think Brumsen is just yanking our chains -- debating because he likes to debate and not because he has anything substantive to say.
While it's one thing to speculate on why people do what they do, it's another thing to evaluate the propriety of their actions based on less subjective criteria. If their approach simply isn't going to work, it doesn't largely matter why we think they're doing it.
|