It's interesting to note how the styles of Russell Okung's article and PG's response are so different. Okung draws analogies to sports, men on hills, uses rheto

It's interesting to note how the styles of Russell Okung's article and PG's response are so different. Okung draws analogies to sports, men on hills, uses rhetorical questions, and talks about dreams and compassion. It's impassioned. PG's response is a cold deconstruction. A implies B implies C, but B is not true hence the argument is false. Personally I love this style of argument and wish more people would argue in this way, but, anecdotally, people often think you're an asshole when you do. Maybe it's because you miss out on nuances that you find irrelevant to the central question, but that others feel are very important. Maybe it's just a generally unappealing way to be convinced of something.