This is only if the source isn't trying to address both sides themselves. They, as well as you, don't need to agree with both sides or remain objective in their stance on the matter, but cherry-picking things that only work to strengthen your side of the argument can actually hurt it.
Listening to an opposing side of an argument can be very uncomfortable, especially if it's one that touches on something very personal to you or is being argued in an aggressive manner. Enough to make you not want to look into it at all.
Choosing to ignore the side of the argument you don't agree with only weakens your own. When it comes to arguments I'm passionate about, my automatic reaction in the face of the opposition is to flee. Scroll past it, exit the tab or fast-walk past that mess.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion...
An opposing counsel is a lawyer or attorney representing an opposing party in a lawsuit. In a legal dispute, you'll typically have the plaintiff represented by an attorney along with the defendant also legally represented. The plaintiff's attorney is the opposing counsel to the defendant's attorney and vice-versa.
Zealous representation does not mean a lawyer should strive to “win” a case at all costs, if that means harming third parties and adversaries unnecessarily in the process. It means doing everything reasonable to help a client achieve the goals set forth at the outset of the representation.
Why? Because lawyers not only understand how to argue a point; they also know how to win the point. The good news is that presenting an effective argument is a learned skill that has little to do with formal legal training, and a lot to do with a few practical strategies.
When a lawyer has actual knowledge that a client has committed perjury or submitted false evidence, the lawyer's first duty is to remonstrate with the client in an effort to convince the client to voluntarily correct the perjured testimony or false evidence.
It describes the sources and broad definitions of lawyers' four responsibilities: duties to clients and stakeholders; duties to the legal system; duties to one's own institution; and duties to the broader society.
A lawyer should feel a moral or professional obligation to pursue a matter on behalf of a client with reasonable diligence and promptness despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer.
Lawyers of both sexes are more likely to cheat. According to Bustle, there is a strong correlation between power and confidence, and extremely confident people are more likely to cheat.
6:319:28How to Argue Like a Lawyer - YouTubeYouTubeStart of suggested clipEnd of suggested clipFocus on the points the main points that you can win on the argument. And put the ones that are redMoreFocus on the points the main points that you can win on the argument. And put the ones that are red herrings that are less important over to the side. They don't matter when I go into an argument.
Good logical and analytical reasoning On a daily basis, they must be able to digest the law and its requirements, while forming arguments and reasoning to suit their client's cases — whether it be corporate law, criminal law, or family law, among others.
Criminal defense attorneys are ethically required to zealously represent their clients, no matter what their personal opinion of the case may be. This means that criminal defense attorneys are required to do their best to advocate for their clients, even if the attorney believes the client is guilty.
First of all, liars have difficulty maintaining eye contact with the person asking the questions. If the witness looks up at the ceiling while thinking of an answer, or looks down at the floor, they are liying every time. When a witness covers his mouth with his hand, he is about to lie.
The attorney-client privilege is a rule that protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. Under the rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients' secrets, nor may others force them to.
If an attorney manages to liase many or all all your issues, then you have already lost, especially if they have told you not to talk to the spouse and they have served their purpose by fait accompli. If it comes down to money, you have lost, that is the level of basic understanding marriage has become for males.
If you do decide to appeal the decisions of the family court, the Supreme Court, no less, will very likely uphold and support the malfeasance of the family court because the antics of the lower court personnel mirror those of the Supreme Court. I bet the family court personnel have recognized this and are busy minting.
In the end, the most important thing is keeping parents and children safe, and maintaining the economic viability of parents. These all involve human and civil rights. What despairs me, is that the judiciary is far too willing to rule in favor of men in appeals, and not take cases of mothers and children.
And your are right, the judges dont know the laws and/or the Florida Statutes, so no one should take for granted that they do. But the reality is,,they dont know them because they dont have to know them, because they just fly by the seat of their pants and there is no one to check them.
The gal did not investigate any of the leads I gave him. The magistrate had a stay for seven months. And the clerk of courts refused to send out the subpoenas. The clerk of courts told my attorney’s staff they were to short of staff to fax the subpoenas over my attorney’s office the day before the trial.
If they were only made up of one side, it would be so much easier to win. But such is life, and facing perspectives different from your own is a part of that; even if you feel other perspectives are harmful and perpetuate hateful ideals that you can't even try to understand on a personal level.
Listening to an opposing side of an argument can be very uncomfortable, especially if it's one that touches on something very personal to you or is being argued in an aggressive manner. Enough to make you not want to look into it at all.
Unfortunately, not everyone is honorable enough to not use whatever mischievous tactic they can to get others to follow them. Furthermore, if this did happen and you went on to cite their misinformation to support your own argument, it would lessen your credibility as well as reassert the unreliability of theirs.
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
Most people hired attorneys because they don't want to sit in court. Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
Credibility is one of the most important things in this world - and most important in a courtroom. If you care enough only to wear sweats to the courthouse, then the judge will see that you don't care, and that will be reflected in their desire to help you, listen to you, and decide in your favor. Step it up.
If the judge can see your boobs, he's not listening to your story. If I can see your boobs, then I know you didn't care enough about yourself to talk to an attorney. Dress like you are going to church. Credibility is one of the most important things in this world - and most important in a courtroom.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
If no one can confirm that the story is true, you will at least need something external, such as a hard copy document, to prove your case. Be prepared.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
Often used to protect assertions that rely on universal generalizations (like "all Marketers love pie") this fallacy inaccurately deflects counterexamples to a claim by changing the positioning or conditions of the original claim to exclude the counterexample.
Instead of acknowledging that most (if not all) issues can be thought of on a spectrum of possibilities and stances, the false dilemma fallacy asserts that there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes.
Logical fallacies -- those logical gaps that invalidate arguments -- aren't always easy to spot. While some come in the form of loud, glaring inconsistencies, others can easily fly under the radar, sneaking into everyday meetings and conversations undetected. Having an understanding of these basic logical fallacies can help you more confidently ...
In place of logical evidence, this fallacy substitutes examples from someone's personal experience. Arguments that rely heavily on anecdotal evidence tend to overlook the fact that one (possibly isolated) example can't stand alone as definitive proof of a greater premise.
The tu quoque fallacy (Latin for "you also") is an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering criticism with criticism -- but never actually presenting a counterargument to the original disputed claim.
This fallacy occurs when your opponent over-simplifies or misrepresents your argument (i.e., setting up a "straw man") to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of fully addressing your actual argument, speakers relying on this fallacy present a superficially similar -- but ultimately not equal -- version of your real stance, helping them create the illusion of easily defeating you.
If you have difficulty understanding how or why something is true, that doesn't automatically mean the thing in question is false. A personal or collective lack of understanding isn't enough to render a claim invalid.
But often the strawman argument is accidental, because the offender doesn’t realize the are oversimplifying a nuanced position, or misrepresenting a narrow, cautious claim as if it were broad and foolhardy. Your Turn: See if you can detect how both of the following statements could qualify as a strawman argument.
Example 1. “MacDougal roots for a British football team. Clearly he’s unfit to be a police chief in Ireland.”. Example 2. “All people from Crete are liars”. YouTube. Intelligite.
A Formal Fallacy is a breakdown in how you say something. The ideas are somehow sequenced incorrectly. Their form is wrong, rendering the argument as noise and nonsense. An Informal Fallacy denotes an error in what you are saying, that is, the content of your argument.
Ad Hominem Fallacy. When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments. In logic and rhetoric, a personal attack is called an ad hominem. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.”.
An ad hominem is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims. Use of an ad hominem is commonly known in politics as “mudslinging.”.
Many of these errors are considered logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are commonplace in the classroom, in formal televised debates, and perhaps most rampantly, on any number of internet forums. But what is a logical fallacy? And just as important, how can you avoid making logical fallacies yourself? Whether you’re in college, or preparing to go to college; whether you’re on campus or in an online bachelor’s degree program, it pays to know your logical fallacies. This article lays out some of the most common logical fallacies you might encounter, and that you should be aware of in your own discourse and debate.
An appeal to ignorance isn’t proof of anything except that you don’t know something. If no one has proven the non-existence of ghosts or flying saucers, that’s hardly proof that those things either exist or don’t exist. If we don’t know whether they exist, then we don’t know that they do exist or that they don’t exist.
In their eyes, you are being unreasonable because you dont acknowledge that they are superior, right, and all around wonderful people. They find it terribly offensive, and feel shame, injustice, and rage ( narcissistic injury ). To regulate their overwhelming emotions, they often try to receive false validation.
Sometimes they lie about what happened, what you or they did and didnt do, or even about whats real and factually true. Often to the degree of pure denial and delusion.
And so in this article we will explore some typical techniques a narcissist uses in conflicts and similar social situations. 1. Arguing in bad faith. When in disagreement, a common person tries to understand the other party, listen to them, be honest, and make sure they understand where others are coming from.
A narcissist, on the other hand, sees interaction as a win-lose situation. To win, they try to dominate, bully, deceive, demean, humiliate, and hurt others.
Psych Central does not review the content that appears in our blog network (blogs.psychcentral.com) prior to publication. All opinions expressed herein are exclusively those of the author alone, and do not reflect the views of the editorial staff or management of Psych Central. Published on PsychCentral.com.