> ...and then you slide a group of elements in and out from the side a few > thousand times using a mechanism that can't cost more than a few bucks, > and tell me how many "red-headed flea's fine curly hairs" it shifted > from the time it rolled off the line. > Did you even look at the diagram of what's going on inside that lens > assembly every time you turn the thing on and off?
You're arguing a _supposition_. Lordy, you would never have made it three months into a college debating class. This would not even be approved as a _topic_ for a debate by any competent Middle-School debating coach. For heaven's sake, at least pick a topic that can be argued based on something within shouting distance of the elementary principles of debating forensics. Analogy does not constitute proof, facts don't go to proof if they're not in evidence, supposition is not foundation, etc., etc. Not that I mean to hand _you_ any ammunition, but for a basic text, you might try Freeley and Steinberg's _Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making_. --Mike
