Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Nonsense. A ten year old could beat a Harvard debater if he was arguing that the Boston Celtics could beat most little league teams in baseball. Its only when it is close that expert debaters have the edge even if they have the wrong side.
It's probably been said, but I don't think this is true at all.
We know very well that capillary action occurs.
If I were to argue that it does in a debate with a supremely skilled debater, I'd easily lose.
The reason is simple - capillary action is tough for most people to understand. It can't be clearly demonstrated to them, and even videos of capillary action can be waved away as some other phenomenon. Because they can't actually understand the theory, they're forced to take someone's word for it - that's when expert debaters have the edge.
Of course, this happens when the debate is close, but it also happens when it's just plain confusing for the audience.
(If capillary action isn't convincing you, try the four color theorem.)