An alternative question I might have put to him was whether he could make the argument for apartheid about as well as a competent defender of that system could.
That’s a wrong question to ask. He is not an expert. The right one would be
whether a competent opponent could make the argument for apartheid about as well as a competent defender of that system could.
Shouldn’t his arguments screen off his authority? Isn’t that the whole point of arguments?
Shouldn’t his arguments screen off his authority? Isn’t that the whole point of arguments?