She's certainly a good debater, I wouldn't argue with that. But like I said, she doesn't really debate for anything; rather, she seems to get a massive and really annoying kick out of debating against anything she can get her hands on, to the exclusion of meaningful discussion.
I can't tell you how many debates I've gotten in with her where she obviously agrees with me but just wants to glom onto insignificant semantic nuances that can she can make appear to be disagreements. This, in itself, could make for interesting debate, if not for the fact that she prefers to ignore each and every point of agreement in sight. I guess you could argue that this makes her a true debating machine, but I must say I doubt her integrity in this matter.
An example of a fascinating contrarian is Christopher Hitchens. MT, for all her effort, is not a contrarian, she just likes to say "you're wrong" in as many ways as possible.
Edited by Tchan909 (04/28/09 08:26 PM)
|