This site is about the science of climate change, not about
scoring rhetorical points.
For myself, as a member of the lay public selective quoting leaving the thoughts of the person she's quoting truncated and inaccurately summarized in order to
score rhetorical points cements this notion.
In consequence he is treating two phrases which convey the same information to anyone who has not set out ab initio to
score rhetorical points as being entirely distinct.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you realize, most of them are just trying to
score rhetorical points, so whether they have the data or not doesn't really matter.
Not exact matches
Sanders
scored a few more
rhetorical points than Clinton, frequently drawing rousing applause from his supporters at the Brooklyn Naval Yard.
Spitzer
scored plenty of
rhetorical points — calling DiNapoli's selection «an insider's game of self - dealing» that «confirms the public's worst image of what this Legislature does when given discretion,» and ripping Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver for «a lack of integrity.»
Just as Lewandowsky couldn't take the perspectives of climate sceptics in good faith — he had to probe inside their minds, using a shoddy internet survey — Read does not take issue with the arguments actually offered by actual climate change - denying libertarians, he takes issue with his own fantasy libertarian, abandoning all the rigour and practice that the discipline he belongs to has established over the course of millennia, to
score cheap
rhetorical points.
It should definitely not be about
rhetorical arguments or
point scoring.
For one thing, Justice Stevens did, in fact, ask questions — real, not
rhetorical, ones, designed to elicit answers and not to
score debating
points.