Re: Re: slings and arrows

From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:29:03 +0100

Alex Ferguson wrote:
> If one wishes to be 'realistic', it seems clear to me that there's
> little comparison between the degree of disadvantage [of multiple opponents in a verbal contest and a melee]. Being
> outnumbered in a melee is something that martial artists and
> pub fight tacticians worry about endlessly. When did you last
> see a lawyer or debating team member tremble in fear of the prospect
> of having to deal with more than one set of mildly harsh criticism
> at once?

Of course, for a contest as structured as a debate or law trial, what you say is true. One might say that the 'terrain' of such a contest prevents simultaneous attacks. But a more scrappy argument with multiple opponents is different. I recall discussions/arguments (in pubs: more 'pub tactics'?) I've been in where all my opponent have used flawed arguments (of course;-), in attempts to score points (in the vernacular and, I suggest, HW Rules sense). I've carefully countered one of the flawed arguments, but then one of my other opponents adds another argument, so I've made little headway.