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
6 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Very interesting indeed. He would not answer the question. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteI 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:
ReplyDeleteInterviewer: "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,
ReplyDeleteI'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!
ReplyDeleteLook, he was just being nice!
ReplyDeleteGet over it!!
:)
This is a classic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg