Dear Avram,
Please clarify. I will clear my end. The major halachic debates, center around a new dilemma or a new doubt. Neither one is possible to have real doubt unless there is some novel circumstances to debate over. Now what are the exact circumstances? They cannot be obvious to all, because then what would be in doubt? Since the scenario is wellknown, how would there not be a precedent?
Once we are debating unknown circumstances, we must get to bottom of what is real and what is clouding our understanding of it. Either we successfully weed out all the pointless information, or the novelty remains confusing and the outcome is founded on a distortion. Now, what were you saying?
One of the main reasons I blog is to be shown when my opinions completely miss the debate. It is a way to grow that is not available [to me, at least] in real life.