> > 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.
That's true. I should have been more careful with my examples.
> 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.
I agree that there's a marginal advantage in such cases. I just don't think it's anything like as large as the advantage as the 'double-teamers' would get in a physical contest, which it has to be said HW grossly underestimates.
Of course, one difficulty in such cases is that the 'opponents' are also the majority of the 'jury'. If one is presenting a case to another party (like a clan moot, or a tribal king), then you're more likely to win against more numerous opponents, than if the task is to convince _them_...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail