I wish I could write two columns. Column A would always be fresh. I mean, I gotta stay hip, gotta sell some papers. But Column B would be full of revisions and responses to feedback from last week. You see, I tend to get a few e-mails back after each of my columns, with about a 50-50 split on laudatory vs. critical. And I always write back. But last Tuesday Peter Finocchiaro’s critique of my column on faith at Cornell was a little more public and a little more off base than I am used to. So, since The Sun’s editorial staff isn’t exactly chomping at the bit to give me more space, here goes: a little of Column A and a little of Column B.

Arguments often take two distinct forms: ones that have strong merits, reasoning and evidence, and others that are arguments for the sake of having an argument. Defending the former to the death typically works, but defending the latter to the death often digs a person into an even bigger hole.

Back in my debating days, I took on an Arab opponent in one round who would not back off his argument. He did so even as the flaws I pointed out would force him to advocate racial profiling while I, a white person, took a stand against discrimination. Needless to say, it was an easy call for any judge to make, much less the elderly black women that was judging the round.