"Saying they are both contentions for the purpose of argument when they were stated back to back in the same very short paragraph is a lame attempt to backtrack to repair a mistake and save face."
He acts as if *contention* is somehow different than *claim* or *statement* or *argument* in this context. Or that because an assertion doesn't need to have evidence to support it to be called an assertion that this means that any old assertion is as good as any other. It's really very postmodernist of him.
He acts as if *contention* is somehow different than *claim* or *statement* or *argument* in this context. Or that because an assertion doesn't need to have evidence to support it to be called an assertion that this means that any old assertion is as good as any other. It's really very postmodernist of him.
I don't think a jury would buy it. If I was on trial for my life and had an attorney who defended like this, I'd appeal my inevitable conviction based on incompetent defense.