It seems you are unable to answer two questions which would have been pretty easy if you understood the case against Knox and Sollecito and were still satisfied of their innocence. To be sure, they are komponisto-disingenuous questions. But still, why not simply try to answer them anyway?
It’s a very effective rhetorical device to trick the opponent into saying a complicated thing, and then respond with a simple thing. I’m not saying this is what you are attempting, but it could well seem that you are attempting this.
For example homeopaths try to steer conversations about homeopathy so that the skeptic says a lot of complicated things about Avogadro’s Number and the minute time-scale on which water molecule structures persist and the need for double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials and then the homeopath gets to say “Yes, well, it miraculously cured my cat’s cataracts and that’s all I need to know”.
If you tried to explain what evidence you have with regard to when Knox first became concerned about Kercher’s absence, and with regard to when Sollecito and Knox first called the police, and how you conclude from this evidence that they are guilty, you would be put in the position of saying the complicated thing. Other people could then respond with the simple thing, which I predict would be “none of that proves anything”.
Whereas if you make the other person say the complicated thing, then you could respond with a pithy rhetorical question and gain the rhetorical advantage.
I honestly cannot see how the truth-seeking process benefits from you not presenting your evidence. You seem to be taking the discussion to the level of a status battle over who has personal authority and I think we should try to avoid that outcome.
It’s a very effective rhetorical device to trick the opponent into saying a complicated thing, and then respond with a simple thing. I’m not saying this is what you are attempting, but it could well seem that you are attempting this.
For example homeopaths try to steer conversations about homeopathy so that the skeptic says a lot of complicated things about Avogadro’s Number and the minute time-scale on which water molecule structures persist and the need for double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials and then the homeopath gets to say “Yes, well, it miraculously cured my cat’s cataracts and that’s all I need to know”.
If you tried to explain what evidence you have with regard to when Knox first became concerned about Kercher’s absence, and with regard to when Sollecito and Knox first called the police, and how you conclude from this evidence that they are guilty, you would be put in the position of saying the complicated thing. Other people could then respond with the simple thing, which I predict would be “none of that proves anything”.
Whereas if you make the other person say the complicated thing, then you could respond with a pithy rhetorical question and gain the rhetorical advantage.
I honestly cannot see how the truth-seeking process benefits from you not presenting your evidence. You seem to be taking the discussion to the level of a status battle over who has personal authority and I think we should try to avoid that outcome.