So lately I've been especially attentive to styles of argumentation, in hopes of elevating my own consistency. I notice I have a habit, and I am not sure what I am accomplishing by it. Is it a temptation, a set of barriers, a defense, intellectual laziness? Here is the phenomena:

I am presented with a debate topic. I begin with argument A. It is an argument that is short, pointed, easy to deliver, and witty. It is an argument which I love, but one which I know is wrong, but I have genuinely forgotten that it is wrong because of my love for it. In fact, it was refuted several times before, but in the heat of those moments, I did not take the time to acknowledge its refutation. I quickly moved onto another closely related argument B; substantively linked but formally distinct, requiring my opponent to shift gears in order to rebut me. My opponent did not even notice that I shifted gears; in fact, without careful observation, it may appear that A and B support one another.

Argument B is, maybe, a very good argument, but I do not have the time to substantiate it. I will never have the time to substantiate it. The topic at hand is important, but life is short, and I must choose my battles. A good argument on an important topic requires years of research to formulate. Why am I wasting time on this topic anyway? What am I doing in this debate? My opponent asks for substantiation, and I am instantly discouraged. I realize my error and shift to argument C.

Argument C involves expressing the realization that I'm totally unqualified to be engaged in this debate. But there's a problem; I'm not less qualified than the person I'm debating. Argument C is, therefore, a call to epistemic submission to the forces accessible to persons of our mutual qualifications. It dawns on me that we're both citing research articles we barely understand, but it's too late, because I've already submersed myself in the muck with my opponent, and the mode of dialogue is established beyond repair. 

Can you guess the topic that caused me to notice this? Evolution is where this comes up most often.

This debate strategy is surely a defense mechanism; witless, reflexive, and developed involuntarily. I am discarding it. Argument C is where I belong.

I'm recently engaged in a series of conversations which have cornered me. First, I defend the notion that Presuppositionalism doesn't pin me to a position of inability to learn from secular sources. Later, separately, with the same people, I defend the notion that YEC and OE sources are similarly scientific (this is argument B). My opponent states that YEC and OE are not on equal footing with regard to science because of the freedom of the experts to express themselves. Here are my options:

- Deny that experts have freedom to express themselves (scholarly papers don't permit YEC). But if I make this argument, I have to defend it, and I can't. It has conspiracy-theory-level backing. It may be true (I like conspiracy theories), but in its current form it can't bear the weight I'm putting on it.

- Deny that atheists are capable of intellectual honesty (something I can argue well from Presuppositionalism, but I have already rejected in principle)

Either I am being inconsistent, or I am failing to notice an important category. This will be on my mind all weekend.

"Happy Valentines Day"