Argue like a lawyer and not a Python

I think it’s interesting how similar the first video is to shifty self defense videos. It’s as simple as this four step process, predicated on a presumption that the OTHER guy doesn’t know the system.

Monty python is classic.

Did you watch that first video before you posted it here, @Gyakuto? If so, what do you think?
 
I like the CRAC technique. It's a variant of the syllogism where you make your point clearer by first stating your conclusion. That's basically the only "thinking" required in law school.
 
I like the CRAC technique. It's a variant of the syllogism where you make your point clearer by first stating your conclusion. That's basically the only "thinking" required in law school.
Yes I like it too and I’m definitely going to use it!
 
In my opinion, the purpose of argument properly should be to convince. I hold a position, you hold a different position, and I wish to convince you that my position is the correct position to hold. You wish to convince me of the correctness of yours. We argue our points, and in an ideal world, there is at least the possibility that we may change our minds, or at the very least, admit that the 'other side' has some points in their favor.

However, I do not think anyone really does that much anymore. Our purpose of arguing is not to convince, but to belittle, to browbeat, to 'pwn', or to gain status among those of the same belief already. It's the equivalent of "oh, yeah, well your mother wears army boots."

The saddest point of this is that the crowd often considers the person who is the most insulting or the rudest or the most bombastic as the 'winner', and cheers them on. Like argument was a rap battle.

I consider it part of the downfall of society. Not only are we stupid as a society, we are glad of it and celebrate stupidity as a virtue.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top