Discover more from Overcoming Bias
A few days ago I wrote a post about how a much more defensible position regarding religion can be disadvantaged in debate against a much less defensible one because the defensible position is a complicated and partial truth while the indefensible one is a simple and snappy falsehood. David Brin has a similar idea on a different topic.
Oh, there is something you are now hearing over and over. The BIG ROVEAN TACTIC is this. Demand that their opponents choose a simple, one sentence strategy for Iraq.
"Well? What would YOU do?"
It is horrendous and a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Because No one-sentence answer will sound mature or sage, given the horrific political, social, military, and moral quagmire that we are inheriting. Moreover, any attempt to avoid giving a one sentence answer sounds equivocating and mealy-mouthed.
I Had the Same Idea as David Brin! (Sort Of)
My answer to "what would you do?" is simply "Leave now." If they ask me how to do that, I'd have to ask "Which word are you having trouble with?" :-)
"Partition and leave."
To which the response is "how are you going to do that?". Those who favour the status quo can always describe their preference - more of the same - more snappily than those who favour change.