> From: Benedict Adamson <badamson_at_...>
>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.
IMO ithis is better captured by the fact that they get N attacks against
you rather than that your arguments are at a disadvantage against them.
Thom