No violence intended to the intentions of the original poster, but:

It wouldn't work for me.
No surprise I'm sure :-).

In left hand column:

Number 2 is too cut and dried. "Shown to be faulty" has all sorts of
auumptions in various contextst.

BUT

#3 ythey say "principles of reason", which may just possibly be able to be
worked with BUT then explain it with a completely invalid example -

"More reasonable" is never a guarantee of fact or truth.
Neither is "more supporting evidence", even if "supporting" can be agreed
on.

Number 4's 4 points sound to be more written for a formal debate than for a=
n
attempt to elucidate truth.

And their conclusions at bottom right feel like what the page is really
about. viz an attempt to make a "rule set " that will let you declare your
opponents tactics illegitimate and so show that they have lost the argument=
..

Mayhaps too harch, but I can't feel good about it even at a relook "just in
case".

Whatever.


         R
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.