Craig

Hi Gengwall,

Like the trial lawyer who asks a question he does not already anticipate the answer to, this is a dangerous practice if your intent is to persuade.

Perhaps I see it more like a tennis match. I might try playing my opponent’s backhand and see what he has got there. If his backhand is weak, I will keep probing there. But if his backhand turns out to be quite solid, I will have to acknowledge that and try another approach. I think it is ok to try an approach even if I am not sure how he will answer, and then figure out my response once I know what he thinks. If the comp uses sound reasoning, I need to acknowledge that I can understand why he thinks the way he does on that issue. I may get some help from others (eg from here on Cheryl’s blog) to help me see any holes in his argument that I don’t see, but it may just be better to leave that approach alone, because it is a dead end. That is why I raised it here, and I appreciate your counsel that the hermeneutical approach is not what you would advise. I need to work out whether to find out through experience in the battle, or take your advice.
I agree that the more homework we can do to anticipate what response may occur, and have our answers ready before they reply, the better. But I don’t think that if I am not yet in that position, it necessarily means I can’t try some things and see where they lead. Sometimes a child’s question out of ignorance can lead a mature adult to think and change their whole attitude.