Art of Argumentation
Saturday, August 22, 2009
♥ Saturday, August 22, 2009
I am writing this for two reasons. One, as a consolidation of all that i have learnt from this course; and two as an act of indignant and ferocious protest at my analytical incoherency.
First, style. i am to talk slowly. In talking slower, i get to think. It is about sending the right message across. No point not being able to deliver something so well prepared. In fact, when you talk at a normal pace, and deliberately slow down, the person listening latches onto the description you propose.
Next, Roadmaps. What are you describing, what are the reasons, what are the elements to be satisfied. State it so the judge knows where you are headed and what element you are trying to reach.
Eye Contact and hand gestures. Keep it there for the former, and keep it down for the latter.
Phrases. Short is good. Less is more. State why the argument should win the case in a single succint sentence.
We move onto substance. Here, i am brought to the extremes, where the argument must not just hold water, it must sustain the niagara falls. Stretched to its logical conclusion, does it mean that in every case where there isnt/ is this element, this conclusion must be reached?
Think about hypothetical scenarios.
The strongest argument is the one that faces the least resistance. Think about a counterargument. Then a counter to a counter. And bring it all the way to a point where there isnt any. If it stands under that amount of scrutiny, it is a good argument.
Infuse it with policy.
So these advices are responses to things i am omitting or comitting. Evidence that there is an irritating bug distracting my mind's eye everywhere else than the forming of a concrete argument or the locating of an indefensible position.
The power of language here makes all the difference. Each person would have prepared a generally similar amount. The way it is delivered and crafted separates great from good, lawyer from senior counsel.
However, this is not all, because if it was all, we would have failed right at the selection stages and in our place would a great national debater or former mooting champion be. We were selcted on potential. The aim was then to nurture it. Analysis can be strengthened and the irritating bug can be squashed.
We were also selected on other criterion. A competitive streak, a loveable personality, a knowledge of areas of law, an eloquency in interactions etc. They saw it in us- that something that said this would work; and they went along with it. We cannot be so inconsiderate as to demolish that faith.
So battered, bruised, scalded and other words synonymous with wounded, we may be. But it is not over, there is always another fight. And what does not kill you, makes you stronger.
