Originally Posted by Unistat
What you saw as a pointless argument, I saw as a debate over the merits of two seemingly equally attractive options. They both laid out their reasons for the way they wanted to do things and left it to the viewer to determine which made more sense.
BTW, they weren't really on the run from poachers, just like their jeep didn't really break down. It was part of the "survival scenario" they were demonstrating.
I understand the poacher situation was fictional for the episode. And I understand the philosophy behind going fast/slow and yes, they needed to discuss that....but not standing still in the middle of a clearing! If the poacher situation is real...you're not getting farther from it. If the wild animal situation is real...you're standing there in the open. Better, more common sense thing to do is to discuss it WHILE moving, even slowly. You can watch where you're going, watch where you've been and still move. That's the point.
For example, if it were me and you in Africa, I'd be discussing the situation with you (walk fast/slow in the open/concealed etc) while we were on the move. At least then something is being accomplished. The last thing I'd do is stop in the middle of a clearing with you and open a debate. That accomplishes nothing except exposing us to risk from the front and from behind because we're busy arguing the finer points of survival while not moving or being situationally aware.