In polities, in the courts, even on the ubiquitous TV talk shows, it is good form to pick an intellectual fight. People attach each other--hurl insults, even--and it counts as logical argument. I cannot understand it. They win if they can successfully convince the audience that they are right, even if the case they are arguing is clearly non-sensual. They do this by proving themselves to be stronger, brighter, more outrageous, even. The training in this adversarial approach continues at our tertiary institutions. The standard way to present an academic paper, for instance, is to take up an opposing argu- ment to something expressed by another academic. The paper must set out to prove the other person wrong. This is not at all the same thing as reading the original paper with an open mind and discovering that you disagree with it.