Effective debating suggestions

There are some basic suggestions that apply to most forms of debate in order to make a debater’s presentation more effective. These suggestions apply generally, whether the debate is a legal one within a courtroom setting, a political one between candidates in a town hall format or a policy one between academic panelists at a conference.

Accurately reference facts

Debaters must use facts to support their arguments and points in their presentations. The points should be researched and carefully crafted. The research sources should be irrefutable. Experienced debaters know they cannot quote an individual author to support a proposition and anticipate the competing team to believe that author is the ultimate authority on the topic. Likewise, anecdotal evidence is easily and readily dismissed by opponents. Instead, statistics, generally-accepted facts and evidence grounded in solid research are far more preferable reference points.

Clearly make your points

Refrain from using ambiguous and vague terms that lend themselves to multiple, if not competing, interpretations. Likewise, it is best not to use terms that require specialized knowledge, skills, education or training to understand. Slang, colloquial expressions and informal vernacular are inappropriate, as well. In open fora, one cannot assume that the audience, judges and competitors will all comprehend the same meaning for a given statement. The last thing a debater wants to have happen is to be misunderstood in making her points and arguments within her presentation.

Leave emotion and ego out of the debate

Rhetoric that includes emotionally-charged language has no place in a debate. The intent is to engage in intellectual discourse and not a shouting match of insults and criticisms thrown back and forth. An Athens divorce lawyer can tell you that a divorce between antagonistic spouses is likely to devolve into the latter, which actually makes divorce proceedings last longer and inflicts more emotional injuries.

A debate is focused upon the substance of the arguments made, the logic within those arguments, the persuasiveness of the presentation and the research behind the arguments. Colorful language delivered in a heated manner that is grounded in personal attacks is not going to win points, let alone a debate round or tournament. The focus of all comments should be the resolution, topic or issue of the debate.

Do research homework before debating

At a minimum, before a debater enters a debate, she must have a thorough understanding of two things: her own position and the position of her opponent. An understanding of your own position is crucial in any type of persuasive public speaking if you are to explain your arguments to a third party in a clear, logical, rational and convincing manner. Likewise, if you are seeking to attack your opponent’s position and poke holes in his logic, research, rationale or arguments, you need to have a complete understanding and comprehension of his argument, including all of its subtleties. A good technique is to assume your opponent’s position for a practice round or mock debate and attempt to defend it. That intellectual exercise forces your brain to flip arguments and envision alternative viewpoints and perspectives.

Once you know how to effectively participate in a debate, it is time to focus on how to win an argument—a less distinguished and often far more heated—type of debate. The next article in Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses delves into this very topic.

Related posts:

1. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: Why Debate?
2. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Nature of a Legal Debate
3. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Elements of a Debate

A bit of background on CISPA

The intent of CISPA is to protect the United States from parties who attempt to gain unauthorized access to Internet networks and systems. Those who believe in the bill view it as a way to protect private or government information and safeguard the public from cyber threats, whereas many who oppose it are concerned over its lack of safeguards for civil liberties.

To me, the language of CISPA as it presently stands raises a number of questions that have not yet been satisfactorily answered. For example, who is to police the amount of information shared between the government and private companies — and how will they do so? What exactly qualifies as a cyber threat to national security? Where will liability ultimately lie?

Perhaps most troubling of all: Is the lack of discussion of CISPA an indication that we are starting to view privacy as a privilege, not an inherent right? My Marvel-loving heart can’t help but compare this to the epic 2006 – 2007 Civil War storyline and its “Whose Side Are You On?” tagline.

Taking sides

Political parties and many public and private organizations have stated whether they support or oppose CISPA as it currently stands. In the House of Representatives, the vote to approve CISPA was strongly partisan: of the 248 votes for CISPA, 206 were from Republicans and 42 were from Democrats. The 168 votes against CISPA came from 140 Democrats and 28 Republicans.

Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications and tech companies have all voiced their support of CISPA. Trade groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Internet Security Alliance have also thrown their weight behind the bill.

Individuals and groups who stand against CISPA include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Reporters Without Borders, the Constitution Project, TechFreedom, Mozilla and Ron Paul. Mozilla’s head of Privacy and Public Policy Department released a statement to Forbes that started by saying “While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security…” and “we hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues.”

Of course, this newest iteration of the Machiavellian debate regarding whether the ends justify the means may be for naught, considering President Obama’s threat to veto CISPA without changes in the bill’s privacy protections.

Related posts:

1. Fight For Your Rights: Traffic Stops

Debating hones your decision-making abilities

Debating is a form of decision-making. This is the same decision-making that consumes and fills our daily lives on so many different levels. This decision-making occurs on individual and communal or collective bases in our daily lives. From the simplistic decisions of what to prepare for dinner to the more complex, high-stake decisions of which college to attend or which job offer to accept, our societies and communities are advanced with better quality decision-making.

Debating sharpens key skills

Participants can sharpen key life skills through the process of debate. Those key life skills include, at the very least, critical thinking, listening, research, analysis, logic, creative thinking, communication, persuasion, flexibility and information processing. The list could go on and on. Because debaters learn how to train their thinking patterns and how to advocate a position, they can assist their communities on numerous levels—whether they are working on a local or a global scale. The ability to express one’s opinions in a clear, persuasive, compelling, intelligent and articulate manner is invaluable in career, community and personal settings. After all, the expression of our opinions helps to define and distinguish our human race.

Debating is training for your future career

These crucial life skills prepare people for a myriad of careers. Some people assume that debating is exclusively a training ground for a career in law or politics. Predictably, a high percentage of those who debate as students in an academic environment do go into those types of legal and/or political career fields. By now you have doubtlessly held debates in one or more of your law school classes concerning real or hypothetical situations, such as the amount of compensation a party should be eligible to receive if they were 30 percent at fault for a multi-vehicle Fresno auto accident that occurred on a poorly maintained roadway.

Yet, the life skills that are honed through debating can help managers, business owners, teachers, team members, coaches, salespersons and trainers, among many other types of career professionals. This means that the debate skills you have honed during law school can still be put to use even if you decide to change careers after graduating.

Debate competitions challenge competitors to improve and excel

In addition, competitors who participate in debates are brought into circles with others who share their intellectual interests, hobbies and curiosity. Tournaments are testing grounds where debaters have the opportunity to pit their skills and acumen against competitors from other schools or areas. Furthermore, the competitive format motivates and spurs competitors to prepare, practice and challenge themselves, as well as one another. Competitors want to improve their skills and arguments as quickly and significantly as possible so they can advance in elimination rounds throughout a given debating tournament. Undoubtedly, competitors sharpen their thinking, research and analysis skills throughout the process of competing in debate rounds and tournaments.

If we have successfully convinced you that participating in a debate can be beneficial to both your personal and professional development, check back soon for tips on how to effectively participate in a debate.

Related posts:

1. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Elements of a Debate
2. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: Styles of Debating
3. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Nature of a Legal Debate

New York citizens who wish to divorce no longer have to prove fault, or cause of action, on the part of their spouses. Under no-fault divorce, either spouse can ask the court to dissolve the marriage, usually on grounds of irreconcilable differences or irretrievable breakdown.

How fault was defined prior to 2010

Under the old fault-based divorce laws, New York courts recognized several circumstances as grounds for divorce, including:

• Cruel and inhuman treatment (physical abuse or mental cruelty)
• Abandonment (physically leaving the shared residence or ending marital relations)
• Imprisonment for more than three years
• Adultery (extra-marital relationship occurred without the knowledge or consent of the other spouse)
• Separation agreement (both spouses agreed to live apart for at least a year)

In order to start a divorce proceeding, one party had to accuse the other party of wrong doing based on one of these grounds.

In cases where both parties wanted the divorce, New York divorce lawyers would advise the plaintiff to make a false claim or provide fake evidence, such as staged photos to prove alleged adultery. The defendant would not contest the charge since both spouses wanted the divorce.  In other cases, the couple arranged for a legal separation and waited out the year to finalize the dissolution of their marriage.

Before 2010, if there was not a mutual agreement about ending the marriage and there were no clear grounds for divorce, the non-consenting spouse could make it difficult to proceed. One rationale for no-fault divorce laws is that it makes divorce proceedings less traumatic and less expensive—in terms of time and money—since it discourages adversarial legal battles. No-fault divorce aims to minimize conflict by encouraging both parties to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.  These are worthy goals, though achieving them is usually easier if you have an experienced New York divorce lawyer on your side to protect your legal rights and your best interests in the settlement.

Related posts:

1. Divorce Procedures in Michigan
2. Do-it-Yourself Divorce in Wisconsin
3. New York Justice System Strengthens DNA Database

Most traffic laws are tailored specifically to your state or city, so learn the dos and don’ts before getting behind the wheel. Overall, we recommend becoming familiar with the basics behind understand law enforcement, no matter the state.

1. Pulling over

The first step of your traffic stop is generally the most stressful. You’re driving and sure, maybe you’ve blown a red light or were going a little too fast but when you see the glare of the cop car lights in your rear-view you start to panic. But you want to remain safe so first thing’s first, pull over at your first safe place, turn off your car and stay in the car. Be courteous, stay calm and have your license, registration and proof of insurance always close by.

2. Searches

If an officer asks if they can search your car, it’s because they don’t have the right to do so otherwise. And it’s OK to say ‘no,’ even if you have nothing to hide.

Many people believe that saying ‘no’ to a police search will only make things worse, giving them probably cause and giving you the look of guilt. According to flexyourights.org, that’s silly. Citizens have the right to flex a constitutional right without having it get turned around and used against them. Giving your permission is “consenting” to being searched which removes the pre-requisites that the cop would otherwise need a warrant or probable cause. If these are called “consent searches” why would they be optioinal? Just say no.

3. Remain Silent

If things get a little out of the routine during your traffic stop, it’s important you remember you don’t need to speak to the officer without an attorney present. There’s a reason that’s included in your Maranda Rights. But be clear about your intentions and say “I’m remaining silent” before you zip your lip and throw away the key. This way everyone is on the same page and assumptions don’t have to be made regarding why you’re giving the cop the silent treatment.

4. Exiting the Vehicle

During traffic stops, it is possible that the officer may order the you or your passenger to get out of the vehicle. This is either for investigational purposes or because the officer’s safety feels threatened. Generally, if you’re asked to step out of your vehicle it’s because criminal activity has been suspected so prepare yourself for a pat-down and a pesky search request.

Some ways to avoid giving the wrong impression to the cop’s safety can be to turn your internal light on if it’s dark out and keep both hands on the steering wheel.

5. Passengers

It’s equally as important to understand the rights of your passengers during these routine traffic stops. The stops usually come as a result of moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle so passengers cannot be held responsible and are generally free to leave.

More often than not, however, police will find a passenger leaving the scene to be suspicious and they don’t require much evidence in order to hold them.

If police activity is suspected, the driver and passenger will be separated for questioning. Otherwise, passengers must also remember to refuse search requests and remain silent without an attorney present.
Other things to remember during your traffic stop are to keep your private belongings out of plain sight, maintain a level of respect with the officer and never physically resist arrest.

No related posts.

If you find yourself accused of going outside those limits, the knowledge of a Detroit criminal defense lawyer can be essential to protecting your rights.

The boundaries of the law in a borderless Internet

There are many kinds of criminal activity on the Internet, and some cross paths with businesses. These include the following:

• Email spam or illegal bulk emails. Spam emails are unsolicited, and are sent out in bulk, rather than individually. Anyone sending out advertising emails needs to be very careful not to run afoul of their Internet Service Provider’s use policies, let alone the law. Though most kinds of bulk email are protected speech, some may constitute fraudulent or threatening activity and consequently become subject to prosecution.
• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Anyone circulating material such as music, video, images or even words may inadvertently run afoul of this 1998 law that makes it a crime to bypass barriers built to protect copyright.
• Identity theft. The stealing of a person’s private information for fraudulent purposes and personal gain is and should be a crime. But business transactions sometimes necessarily involve the exchange of such information, leading to confusion.
• Solicitation of a minor. On the Internet, a person can pretend to be anything—including of legal age. If you invite a person to engage in activities that are illegal for a minor under the impression that you are dealing with an adult, you are at risk for an accusation of solicitation.
• Fraud. Just as others can pretend to be anyone, they may misunderstand who you are. Fraud is engaging in an intentional deception; but in a virtual environment, unintentional deception is rife. If your actions or assurances have been misunderstood, you may need a criminal defense attorney to rebut an accusation of fraud.
• Creation, possession or circulation of child pornography. Sexual abuse of children on the Internet is an area where authorities at every level take aggressive action. It is easy for innocent material or inadvertent surfing to put one technically afoul of these very strict laws. Because of their disastrous impact on your reputation, these kinds of accusations demand a criminal defense attorney.

Related posts:

1. Internet Gambling Coming to a State Near You? What the DOJ’s Change of Heart Means for the Immediate Future of Internet Gambling
2. State of Arkansas Plans Further Budget Cuts for Crime Labs
3. Free Legal Help for Violent Crime Victims in Texas

Styles of debating

Some of the more popular and/or common styles of debating that are practiced and used in competitions today include the:

• Boston Massacre debate style: This is a technique used during some debates, and is considered a dirty tactic in debate. A debater engaging in the Boston Massacre style lists every plausible fact they can recall and just spews the information in a rapid fire style. The aim is to overwhelm, confuse and disorient the opponent by presenting an exhausting amount of information all at once. The hope is that an opponent will only be able to counter a few of the many points raised, and in missing other points, lower his score.
• Devil’s Advocate debate style: This is also more of a tactic or technique used in debating, rather than a type of debating. This technique derives from Vatican days when new saints were canonized. When a particular saint candidate was presented for discussion and consideration, often times, the papal/clergy panel found the discussion to be very one-sided and biased in favor of sainthood. In response, a technique was created, whereby a person would be assigned to argue against the proposition of sainthood. That party tasked with arguing against the proposition (whatever it might be) is called the “Devil’s Advocate.” The Devil’s Advocate excels at arguing points with which she agrees, just as she argues with equal vigor against the points with which she disagrees. This is a tactic that every debater should practice in order to hone her skills, learn how to better analyze an issue from multiple positions, and develop the ability to counter and attack an opponent’s arguments. The Devil’s Advocate must often speak extemporaneously with very little preparation time.
• Lincoln-Douglas debating: Lincoln-Douglas debating is a type of debate often practiced and used in competitions at the high school level. This type of debate is often called values debating because it emphasizes logic, ethics, values and philosophy. It is a type of debate for two individual competitors, rather than a team. It first emerged in debate competition in 1980. The historical debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, upon which the type is modeled, occurred back in 1858. Those historical debates centered around values, morals, logic and ethics regarding the practice of slavery.

Why is this important to know? The next article in Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses explores the benefits of engaging in intelligent debates. As a St. Cloud attorney can tell you, learning how to intelligently participate in a debate while you are in law school can make it easier to transition from the classroom to the courtroom following law school.

Related posts:

1. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: Common Debating Errors
2. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Nature of a Legal Debate
3. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Elements of a Debate

Plenty, if you ask the legal defense team of George Zimmerman. Amid the whirlwind of reporting on the minutia of the murder trial, one aspect that has caught the attention of media today is the social angle.

Initially Mr. Zimmerman had done what any modern guy would do – he used his social media accounts and a web site to tell his side of the story. But when the story is this polarizing, and attracts The Media in all its ferocious glory, the story gets lost amid the response to it.

This is when his defense team from O’Mara Law Group saw an opportunity. Clearly Mr. Zimmerman shouldn’t be talking about the case to the public; that would provide too many opportunities for saying something that could be misconstrued or taken out of context. When your daily life involves death threats, you can’t be too cautious about what you say. Plus, with a case getting this much coverage, it would also take more than one person to handle the scale of the public and media response.

With the OK from Mr. Zimmerman the firm shut down his social media accounts and website, and created its own on his behalf. The firm manages his social PR in a sense, along with his defense. O’Mara Law Group makes the point that doing this on behalf of the client is just keeping up with the times.

From the firm’s George Zimmerman Legal Case website:

First, we contend that social media in this day and age cannot be ignored. It is now a critical part of presidential politics, it has been part of revolutions in the Middle East, and it is going to be an unavoidable part of high-profile legal cases, just as traditional media has been and continues to be. We feel it would be irresponsible to ignore the robust online conversation, and we feel equally as strong about establishing a professional, responsible, and ethical approach to new media.

The firm is willing to take on this responsibility, though how and who this is benefiting remains unclear. As of 11:20 EST today, @GZlegalCase has 1,187 followers and has produced 46 tweets. Some of the tweets are self-promoting for the firm, socializing a recent post on the George Zimmerman Legal Case website, and some are actively engaging other twitter users who have commented on the case. The George Zimmerman Facebook page has received 1,753 Likes and is being used predominantly to plug the website at this point.

Since Mr. Zimmerman’s fate will be decided by impartial jury and judge, all of whom aren’t involved in the social media conversation around the case, the larger question remains: Who will benefit from the firm’s socialization of the case? The firm certainly will – it is solidifying its name as a firm that is in step with modern times, and strengthening its own online brand. The public and media benefit, since they are getting fed their fix.

But as in most, if not all, murder trials, there is no direct benefit of media exposure, social or otherwise, to the two people most intimately involved. Their fates are either already decided, or will be decided in a courtroom, unaffected (hopefully) by the social media efforts of the defense team. Best case scenario of capitalizing on social media around murder trials is the plaintiff’s family and the defendant get more exposure for their side of the story, and the firm gets additional business. Depending on your viewpoint and level of cynicism, the best case scenario may or may not justify the effort.

Related posts:

1. Students Use of Social Media a Form of Expression or Form of Expulsion?
2. Will the NFL’s bounty fallout help answer questions about online speech rights?

Necessary skills

Debating also involves persuasion, wit and rhetoric. Debaters are subjected to and must learn to overcome pressures associated with time constraints and any nervousness that accompanies extemporaneous public speaking. To be successful, debaters must learn quickly how to compile a tool kit of facts, insights and commonly shared values that will prove persuasive. Not familiar with the technical legal aspects of Utah divorce decree modification? Brush up on the subject any way you can so you will be able to verbally spar with your opponent.

Common errors in arguments

Like most disciplines, debaters can improve with practice, experience and hard work. Observing, critiquing and improving debating skills and techniques are fundamental to a debater’s overall improvement and success. One area in which debaters can make measured, if not marked improvement in their skills and performance, is in properly structuring and formatting arguments. Often, arguments fail in simple logical terms, falling prey to common traps and errors.

Specific debating errors

The following illustrations show flawed arguments by type of logical or rhetorical error. The hope is that a debater will recognize and correct the errors in his or her own arguments and even in the arguments of opponents. A successful debater can quickly remove flawed logical and rhetorical arguments of opponents from the debate instead of wasting valuable time on presenting counterarguments better served elsewhere in the debate.

Logical errors

Logical errors are relatively self-explanatory. Here are just a few examples of logical errors:

• Undistributed middle: “Pears are fruits. Oranges are fruits. So pears are oranges.”
• Unwarranted converse: “All snakes are cold-blooded. Your pet reptile is cold-blooded. So, your pet must be a snake.”
• Some to all: “Some dogs are carnivores. Your pet puppy is a dog. So, he must be a carnivore.”
• Negating the antecedent: “All bananas are fruit. Since this is not a banana, it is not a fruit.”

Rhetorical errors

Rhetorical errors are those that arise based on the rhetoric used during a debate. Rhetoric examples include:

• Ad hominem: “You have to be insane or irrational to believe that just because all dogs are carnivores, my dog is a carnivore!”
• Irrelevant authority: “You can be assured that the newspaper is 100% accurate because three out of four people vow that is the case.”

Once you learn how to identify these errors and avoid them before you speak—or write—in a debate, you can more effectively argue your point. Learn about styles of debating in the next installment of Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses.

Related posts:

1. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Elements of a Debate
2. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: Essential Elements of Becoming a Successful Lawyer
3. Legal Debates and Intelligent Discourses: the Nature of a Legal Debate

There are no written guidelines for setting up checkpoints in New York.  Generally, the reason for check points are so law enforcement can stop cars and observe whether the driver appears intoxicated.  Officers may stop every car, every other car, every third car or however they decide to conduct the stops.  Checkpoints are often temporary, set up on holiday weekends or holidays when drunk driving has proved to be an issue in the past.

What you can legally do when avoiding a checkpoint

If approaching a checkpoint, you are within your legal rights to turn off on another highway before reaching the checkpoint.  Authorities cannot follow you and pull you over for avoiding a checkpoint in this manner.

Types of checkpoint avoidance the police can investigate

The police have the legal right to investigate you if you avoid a checkpoint by turning into a parking lot.  In the case People v. Chaffee, a state trooper conducting a sobriety checkpoint noticed that a car quickly stopped and turned into a motel parking lot.  Instead of immediately pulling into a parking space, the car circled the parking lot a few times and only pulled into a parking space when the officer turned on the police car’s warning lights.  Such behavior seemed suspicious and the officer detained the driver at that point.  The court allowed the stop as a legal investigatory measure and the outcome of the case resulted in a felony DWI conviction.  This case set a precedent for sobriety checkpoints and permissible stops for checkpoint avoidance when pulling into parking lots, which is now case law.

Many legal strategies exist to protect a defendant’s rights in a DWI or DUI case.  If arrested for drunk driving, contact a Westchester DWI attorney to discuss your legal options.

No related posts.