Oh I know…as I said, I didn’t even get off the ground.
Ummm. Did you read the thread?
Your premise was that it would be soooo easy to demonstrate, given the information available at that stage, that you challenged a professional to the debate.
This isn’t Perry Mason, to where you can badger the witness and suddenly they will confess.
You weren’t getting anywhere and there wasn’t really anything else you could do. You essentially conceded before you disappeared when you stated you were waiting for new information.
Stay, disappear, whatever, but the question was never if the story was piece of shit, but if it could be *proven *to be so. You were failing spectacularly at that task.
Whatever you want.
Candor, but apparently that’s too much to ask for.
Whatever you say
The main reason being that Zimmerman’s position basically holds together.
I’ve only read the contents of this thread – not any bluster that may have inspired it.
And I felt that Stoid had a virtually impossible task from the outset.
When she (Stoid is female, right?) treated it a bit like a real court case and went through the minute details, you had lots of people complaining and yawning out loud. Then, when she started throwing in speculation and leading questions, courtroom drama style, there were all the complaints of not following proper procedure.
I think the only feasible win would have been if Bricker had just said Oh WTH, I’ll confess.
Probably there would have been fewer complaints if these lines of questions had actually gone anywhere useful for the prosecution.
Anyway, I agree that Stoid’s task was virtually impossible from the outset. Because Zimmerman’s position is fundamentally sound.
This is the Black Knight school of debate. You just spent an entire thread showing that it is your story, and not Zimmerman’s, that is full of shit. After completely failing to present a compelling case that this is true, you can’t reasonably say, “But forget all that, I’m right. QED.”
Okay.
Well anyway, if Stoid had actually accomplished anything it would not be too difficult to present a closing statement of sorts. i.e. a short paragraph or two clearly explaining why the answers Bricker provided have a serious inconsistency either internally or with the reliable evidence presented or even with Zimmerman’s earlier statements.
The thread which inspired included posts typical for what one would expect from the OP of this thread. I don’t recall offhand if large, red font was invoked, but the trademark absolute insistence of certainty was there.
Obviously, the job was impossible. And against a former defense attorney? That does not require a PhD in rocket science to predict that. It would be hard enough in a mock courtroom in real time, and the format here favored Zimmerman, by allowing time to think and specifically time to cross check previous answers to avoid contradictions.
But someone who would understand that would also not accept the other side’s overly gracious offering.