Argue like a lawyer and not a Python

[Gyakuto]

Yes

No

 

[Buka]

Priceless.

 

[Steve]

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?

 

[HighKick]

Yes

No

I KISS CRAC!

 

[O'Malley]

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.

 

[Gyakuto]

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!

 

[O'Malley]

Yes I like it too and I’m definitely going to use it!

No, you're not.

 

[Gyakuto]

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

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.

Even in the places where argument should be the most sound, where it bears on weighty matters of state in parliament, the quality of reasoning is not great. I won't mention particular people, as I don't want this thread locked for political stuff, but the arguments of virtually everybody in the houses of parliament are littered with logical fallacies these days.

 

[Steve]

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.

Arguments can be persuasive, but I don’t think that’s ever been a realistic outcome.

In my opinion, the primary, realistic goal of argument or debate is learning to be intellectually curious and less rigid. I don’t need to agree with you in order to understand you better. That, in my opinion, is what we have lost… the willingness to consider that someone else may just disagree. Not wrong or right.

On complex issues, our positions often start with our values. For example, if we fundamentally disagree on what government’s role is, we will disagree on most policies.

Look at the driving discussions. I get it. Some people place a high value on fairness and they don’t like it when a car cuts the line or speeds or weaves through the lanes. I value getting where I’m going safely and as stress free as possible. But I appreciate hearing their perspectives and hope they reciprocate, even though we likely will never agree.

The same can be applied to discussions on martial arts, guns, healthcare, and pretty much anything else.

 

[Steve]

Even in the places where argument should be the most sound, where it bears on weighty matters of state in parliament, the quality of reasoning is not great. I won't mention particular people, as I don't want this thread locked for political stuff, but the arguments of virtually everybody in the houses of parliament are littered with logical fallacies these days.

Seek first to understand, right?

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Possibly the most desirable outcome is not for one party or the other to change their minds, but for both to deepen their knowledge and come to a deeper, more nuanced understanding.

 

[Gyakuto]

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.

Well you have to look at the audience in that case. Poorly educated and with their own agenda. That kind of argument wouldn’t work in a court of law or parliament…… maybe not the latter.

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.

I don’t think it’s stupidity but lack of education. There is a difference. Hasn’t one of your politicians said he likes the ‘poorly educated’? I wonder why?

 

[Gyakuto]

Possibly the most desirable outcome is not for one party or the other to change their minds, but for both to deepen their knowledge and come to a deeper, more nuanced understanding.

Ooo you’re so nice and bloody wise

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Ooo you’re so nice and bloody wise