Carl Trueman pointed this out for a somewhat different reason (related to Rob Bell) - but the video below illustrates why cross-examination is so important in debates. In fact, it's why cross-examination is the heart of live debate.
It also illustrates how a properly conducted cross-examination can lead the listener to the truth, even if the cross-examined party is not interested in being truthful.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Very interesting indeed. He would not answer the question. Why is that?
I suppose if he says, "Yes", then he will be wrong. And yet he cannot say "No', because he infact did say it.
He could have said: "It all depends what you mean by threaten and threaten is."
Interesting exchange:
Interviewer: "Did you or did you not threaten so-and-so?"
Interviewee: "The relevant question is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do."
P.S. I remember Dave Armstrong commenting that TurretinFan asked him the same question like 50+ times in a comment thread. The gist of Dave Armstrong's comment being that the question had been answered and that TFan was being uncommonly abusive with his repetitive asking of the question.
Obviously, TFan thought Dave Armstrong had not answered the question at all, and was being purposefully evasive.
On a second note, I think Darryl Hart is evasive and a dodgy revisionist rhetorician when it comes to fielding questions about his R2K dogma.
Hey TUAD,
I'm looking forward to Dave's new post based upon your comments. It should only take me a couple of hours to read it.
;-) @ Dave
It is frighteningly clear that he did threaten to overrule him-what a hoot!
Look, he was just being nice!
Get over it!!
:)
This is a classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
Post a Comment