Debates Section Pole...Kepp it or Lose it?

[ginnyfizz]

If that were the case, then why, when a case goes to court for example, and in appeal hearings in particular which are effectively debates, do we lawyers quote case law (real life experience and anecdotes in action...)in order to back up our argument with fact?

 

It isn't the case, lawyers don't quote case law in a trial to the jury to prove their argument (arguing the case law occurs before trial, both sides generally confer with the judge to arrive at a consensus as to what the applicable law is). And real life experiences and anecdotes are generally barred from being introduced in court under hearsay rules...

 

I beg to differ. When in court I actually have sat at the side of barristers who have quoted case law both in trial and appeal and have not been reprimanded by the learned judge. Here in the UK case law comes in at all points in proceedings, although the judge may sometimes send out the jury whilst a point of law is argued, or alternatively, may adjourn with the lawyers to his chambers. Case law is most emphatically NOT confined to pre-trial pleadings. And in an appeal hearing, there isn't a jury anyway.

 

And what I was trying to say was that a prior legal case IS an example of a real life anecdote. It is something that happened and has been recorded as happening and is an example, and is therefore a substantiated real life anecdote. I am more than aware of the hearsay rules - I do have a legal qualification myself after all.

 

Methinks m'learned friend is misconstruing me. I was not saying that real life anecdotes are used in court unless they happen to be case law.

[stars2heaven]

I am more than aware of the hearsay rules - I do have a legal qualification myself after all.

 

 

If you have some legal qualification, then I am curious as to why you might think that discussing the theoretical aspects of debate are less important than other aspects. If I misunderstood that point, then please correct me.

 

Isn't, for example, taking into account the validity and soundness of an argument as important as anything else? After all, even an invalid argument which relies upon real world experience is still invalid.

Edited October 5, 2011 by stars2heaven

[Kendo 2]

One more thing, another problem I see is two pages of people saying "I agree" in different ways.

 

Funny.

 

I can go to no less than ten threads within the last month where the usual suspects hi-jack a thread and two pages later they are still saying 'I agree' to one another. That is, if they don't derail it first.

 

@Aurielius and ginnyfizz

And I have to AGREE about the take on the self-appointed Reichsführers of Logic. The pseudo-intellectual pablum was tiresome when it started, now it's simply being ignored.

[marharth]

One more thing, another problem I see is two pages of people saying "I agree" in different ways.

 

Funny.

 

I can go to no less than ten threads within the last month where the usual suspects hi-jack a thread and two pages later they are still saying 'I agree' to one another. That is, if they don't derail it first.

 

@Aurielius and ginnyfizz

And I have to AGREE about the take on the self-appointed Reichsführers of Logic. The pseudo-intellectual pablum was tiresome when it started, now it's simply being ignored.

PM me those threads if you would. I could PM you at least five threads were your group has done the same.

[lukertin]

I beg to differ. When in court I actually have sat at the side of barristers who have quoted case law both in trial and appeal and have not been reprimanded by the learned judge. Here in the UK case law comes in at all points in proceedings, although the judge may sometimes send out the jury whilst a point of law is argued, or alternatively, may adjourn with the lawyers to his chambers.

 

And what I was trying to say was that a prior legal case IS an example of a real life anecdote. It is something that happened and has been recorded as happening and is an example, and is therefore a substantiated real life anecdote. I am more than aware of the hearsay rules - I do have a legal qualification myself after all.

my original post wasn't really on point and flat out wrong in a few respects, and I subsequently edited it to better reflect what I meant to say. My point goes to the heart that case law isn't a real life anecdote, nor is it used as a real life anecdote, in a trial, I would characterize it is simply as a past record of an impartial adjudicator whose decisions should be followed as best as possible in the current controversy.

 

A real life anecdote in a debate is the use of a particular fact to prove a generalized point which is in controversy; case law in a trial is the use of a generalized rule to prove a particular fact which is in controversy.

Edited October 5, 2011 by lukertin

[Kendo 2]

PM me those threads if you would. I could PM you at least five threads were your group has done the same.

 

I'm gonna pass on that invitation.

[myrmaad]

I'd rather play and have fun with you people, generally, than to argue about nonsense none of us can change.

 

I must say, I find Marharth to be an equal opportunity disagree-er! :laugh:

 

 

I personally do think real debate relies less on anecdotal evidence, even though I myself am often guilty of using the passion appeal. It's just not very persuasive overall.

[Balagor]

"sigh" (press ignore button for @ lukertin and @Gfizz) :tongue:

 

@Marharth, @kendo2 has no group here. Period. But I will AGREE with U2 that this debate section still has a hard time to face

[ginnyfizz]

@stars2heaven

You are also miscontruing me. I was querying the school of thought on here which questions the validity of real life experience. I did not say that theoretical discussion has no place in a debate, or is less important than RL experience. I actually said that there are those on here who dismiss any mention of RL experience as being inferior to theoretical discussion. I obtained a law degree by examination both in writing, viva voce and by completing a dissertation, all of which contained theoretical discussion. You see that is precisely what the problem is on here, as others have pointed out. People posting here often take the stance that two concepts are mutually exclusive, and that if, using this as an example, you believe that real life experience is important, it follows therefore that you think theoretical discussion is not.

 

That is not the case at all, and is emphatically not what I said. But here we are again, taking two and two and making five, and assuming that because I have said there is merit in one side that there is none in the other. We would be better served in these debates if we did not insist that people have to be at one extreme or the other.

[stars2heaven]

@stars2heaven

 

I did indeed feel that I might have misunderstood, which is why I asked for you to clear up the misunderstanding if I was mistaken. I think I should point out though, that the general tone of your post seemed to misconstrue the nature of mine. (which was only a query) Which I think is what you said is a problem :P

Edited October 5, 2011 by stars2heaven