burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Exactly right.....that is the idea, a lot of people use it because it works.
Clues you are debating well on RIU.
- Thread starter burgertime2010
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
no it does not.
it may sway the foolish, the stupid or the ignorant, but it does not win arguments, or debates.
it is a FALLACY.
you cannot "win" an argument through fallacies, any more than you can prove yourself to be honest by pathologically lying your ass off, nor prove your chastity by fucking random strangers in a truck stop men's room.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
The question was intentional and revealing. This is a thread about these types of issues, sorry.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Tell the best lawyers that. This is about persuasion not discussion, go back and read a bit.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
You use this method anytime you can so don't take the high road or accuse me of any bullshit.; Stick to the topic....what can you offer?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
lawyers who prefer to sway the jury with sob stories, emotional appeals and bullshit shenanigans are helpless in the face of facts.
facts beat the living shit out of every half assed fallacious argument, and reveals the fallacy user as a fool.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
No I am not that person.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Would this be true of formal debate? I must admit to contributing all elective courses and extracurricular to musical interests and not the debate team.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
No, it is actually relevant by default here. It is a sleazy desperate measure when it is out of nowhere and irrelevant. Character is important, Kynes has not read the persuasive elements I outlined earlier. He is just stirring an empty pot
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Do you remember the OJ Case at all?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
If you're talking to me I remember OJ had several cases, one murder maybe a wrongful death and some burglary. I don't recall any major details didn't watch much of any of it on television.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Mark Furmahn was an officer and a witness for the prosecution. The defense used his racist past to discredit him and this was in the murder case too. So, that is a real life example.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Oh, I have no idea....my gf tied the Kardashians to OJ trial somehow the other day when I asked what made them come to popularity.
In that example I would say the Furmahn fella should not have been in a place to give testimony as an officer if that truly was his past.....and that it should have been addressed there, in the past....in a perfect world.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Robert Kardashian was one of OJs attorneys
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
*Edited.........
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
There it is, that's what she said lol
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
I forgot the details beyond that but the prosecution allowed race to enter the discourse and OJ hired the best sharks in town.....
ElfoodStampo
Well-Known Member
I don't understand how you guys keep getting pictures of my family. This is my little brother Luthor. Fun little chap.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Idk I thought it was all about a glove that didn't fit or some shit. I tend to work a lot and miss these things, I remember working a lot of OT on my job when that was going on and I had quite a few motorcycle projects in those days.....I still would rather play drums with a headset on for a few hours a day rather than watch the news, mostly.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Dissenting opinion. In the hands of even a moderately talented litigator, facts are the skeleton upon which the Plasticine of obfuscation is lovingly, elegantly and effectively sculpted.