posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by semperfortis
Whew! Great debate there, Semper. That was a 'tooth and nail' one! I think one word in the topic let me squeak by:
”Positive Thought Can
Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."
If it had been:
”Positive Thought Conquers Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."
the bar would have been much
higher, and I don't think I could have gotten away with being a bit cagey in response to some of your questions,
as one judge mentioned.
I'm still wondering if my tactic of asking no SQ's, to encourage you into a more reactive role, was really as effective as I'd hoped. I've
noticed you can build a solid rhetorical response around pretty much any
ammunition that's handed to you; I wanted to avoid that.
An interesting range of feedback from the judges; thanks! Very interesting, it really shows the difficulty in these debates of trying to broadly
appeal to different viewpoints in presentation, while remaining specific in rebuttal and case-building. This was one debate where the limits on
citation counts and source quotes made things a lot tougher!