[Googi]

Originally Posted by Inspiration

However, this doesnt counter the fact that you must research, through whatever methods, the topic in which you're arguing, and the logic needed to make your arguement sound.

No, you don't "have" to research the "logic" needed. You can if you want to and maybe it will help (by triggering thought), but you can develop your rationality just fine without doing so.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

I'd say no. I'd call it simply being incorrect in that case.

You're cheapening what he does by being incorrect about it.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

The player may have another asset that's more important to his success, but if it is true that the free throws and 3 point shots are indeed impressive, you're still advocating the player as talented and strong at what he does.

But you're advocating that he's less strong and talented than he actually is.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Being better at another part of the game isnt, by default, less "cheap" than any other part.

This isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying you aren't recognizing the full extent of his ability.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

And I'm also sure we can find cases where he may not have been right, yet no one was able to effectivly disprove him due to the factors I mentioned.

Maybe, but so what? If he "wins" primarily by using linguistic cleverness and "research" two or three times, and "wins" primarily by using rationality the rest of the times then it's clear which factor is the most important.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

I never stated an absolute either way, or claim that he seemed "always right".

That's why it's in quotes.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

I actually said he could make himself seem almost an expert on whatever he was arguing about, which is true, and again, supports the strengths I saw in him.

You said they were his "main strengths" which is not true.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Could I be overlooking strengths he had? Quite possibly.
Does this mean I am cheapening him by saying I see other qualities? Not at all.

It does when you say that they're his "two main" abilities and thus subordinate his other abilities to them.

Originally Posted by Inspiration

And, if you think about it, the two points I mentioned encompass a pretty broad range of skills.

They don't encompass rationality. Or to the extent that they do it is in that rationality supports them. They do not support it.