I suppose it’s poor form to link to threads that have been locked, or posts of posters who have been banned, to give examples for my purpose.
However, it was in just such a thread, reading the valiant efforts of just such a contributor to weasel out of some illogical position, that a metaphor occurred to me.
Our metaphors often depict intellectual debate as combat – “defeating” the other side, sports – moving the goalposts, or as crime – “stealing an issue, beating up a debater.” Extreme debate tactics even sometimes literally suggest criminal outcomes: “I will probably be assassinated by the people behind this conspiracy.”
But watching some contributors try to carry on a debate while repeatedly refusing to acknowledge or even address any points brought up by the other side gave me a slightly different image: a sumo wrestling match. Both sides might be pushing and throwing their weight around inside the circle that represents the debate…but one guy stepping outside the circle to avoid the weight of his opponent does not mean he is carrying on the fight – in sumo, it means he has lost. He might not think so, but the audience watching the match knows the rules and traditions.
You cannot just step aside intellectually and evade having to even talk about or acknowledge the other side’s legitimate points…well, you can, but you lose by doing so.
That’s as far as I’ve gone with this mental image, but I thought it might be of passing interest to someone else.