How to Win ANY Argument like a Barrister! | BlackBeltBarrister
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 7. 09. 2024
- Everyone likes to win an argument - Here's how you do it!
There are many ways to win an argument but emotion and opinion will not help. Winning an argument takes planning, strategy, and proving individual points that come together to prove your overall argument. Here's my explanation.
đ Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
đ„ Big Camera amzn.to/3yFFcFf
đ„ Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9
đ RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ And if you like my house and decor:
MY CHAIR:
amzn.to/3mYpPBB
Lamp 1 - amzn.to/3ntbEnm
Lamp 2 - amzn.to/3dXfUZi
đ Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 đ Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV đ Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
LAW FAQS
âą Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
âą Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #law #barrister
Description contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Winston Churchill used the expression (paraphrasing) "I would love to agree with you, but there's little benefit in us both being wrong".
Wonderful.
Brilliant
đ
A smart and strategic answer from Churchill, probably meant to confuse the opponent.
I may borrow that for use in qn upcoming debate.
I can't stress the importance of rhetoric. How you deliver the information is absolutely crucial. When an audience is assessing the veracity of your points, they're also computing the pitch, intensity and volume of your voice as well as your linguistic style. The cadence you have when speaking can dramatically change how an audience interprets what you are saying. Believe it or not, it's actually possible to be 100% right but still manage to come of looking like you don't have a clue.
No shÂŁt Sherlock! Thanks! đđ€Ąâ
Absolutely, I think that there is definately an element of performance in debate.
One of the most important methods is your delivery. Try and catch the eye of everyone as you are making your points.
I see it on PMQs every week, and the leader of the opposition is the one with legal training! đ
@@davidwright7588
PMQs? That place where adults behave like 8-year olds around a sandbox, braying like mules at irrelevant âgotchaâ comments that have minimal substance?
Only works when arguing with logical people. Your carefully constructed, calmly presented case is just disposed of with a 'No you are wrong', 'that's all rubbish', 'you are just a .....'. Wouldn't win in a court of law, or necessarily the audience, but you can't persuade the entrenched.
Nice video.
Iâm also a barrister and I realised many years ago that in my personal life it is better not to always win the argument
Agreed! Thisâs is probably worthy of another video!
I'm a negotiator with many strings to my bow and I realised a long time ago that it is best for everyone if I leave the tricks of my trade in my office.
Or to have the last word in an argument, say " Yes my love, of course"
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
@@steamboatwillie8517 I've found "Yes dear" usually brings an argument to an amicable end.
This is why I always start with two sets of information when representing people against the DWP (I specialise in representing people with Asperger's and Autism). Firstly I start with the medical evidence. Secondly I use peer reviewed medical journal articles from the best quality journals I can find, in order to prove that the commonly held views of the conditions in the NHS are in fact demonstrably wrong. I have been practicing for over 12 years now and have as yet to lose a case.
Excellent work Gordon. Many thanks for helping my people. Many of us understand the complex frameworks required to present cogent and specific arguments but just canât process why they can be unsuccessful.
Whatâs the DWP?
@@OzzieOzzieOzzieOyOyOy department of works and pensions. Im guessing they deal with benefit payments to medically impaired people
@@yourmamaok Oh, okay, thankyou. I havenât lived in England since the 1990âs, and when I did live there I worked, so I didnât know anything about government aid to people who canât work. Until you told me, I had no idea of the name of the dept. who deals with it. I learn something new everyday! Again, thankyou.
i always recommend "games people play" by eric berne, written in the 60's it's stood me in good stead in argument cos people aren't usually arguing about what they think they are arguing about.
Really respect how you have created so much targeted content with authoritative, non-patronising responses. No fluff, just clear advice.
Thank you! My aim is to help as many people as possible because I just don't think enough people have access to clear and simple advice (and too often not an option to pay for it) - please do share widely!
@BlackBeltBarrister, Daniel, I wish we had a few weeks to sit down and chat privately to resolve a 34-year ongoing situation đą. Your talent and expertise are seriously lacking in the current legal framework, I think you and Alan are exceptionally talented offices of the courts. The hard part is seeing a clear path forward to resolve and deal with these individuals who we personally believe should be immediately suspended and placed on remand then a case built and judged by 12 peers in a high court of law as I believe is above a Crown Court considering the circumstances. Thank you both for sharing your thoughts and experiences đ â€ïž.
@@BlackBeltBarristerthank you for the advice! (In a non-formal, non-legal way of course)
I have found when arguing with my wife, logic or fact and figures don't mean a thing, in fact I usually end it with "okay, whatever you say".
"It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what I can prove!" does not work with arguments in Employment Tribunal because ETs accept beliefs and opinions from employers as fact even without any supporting evidence. And you can forget the old ''beliefs must be reasonable and have reasonable grounds' because they dont; an employer merely saying they believe something, is good enough for it to be taken as fact!
That is a massive flaw in tribunals. It should only matter what you can prove.
Besides if one party can state "I believe" then so can the other party.
@@ultrademigod According to ETs, your beliefs ought to be taken into account by the employer at disciplinary stage when you had to justify your actions; its not for the ET to determine if they were taken into account. ETs will only take employer's beliefs into account because its the employer who has to justify their actions to the court. My sticking point with this is when it comes to health & safety training which has to be recorded; why do ETs allow employers to rely on a 'belief' that someone was trained when the training records can verify that as fact!
@@MezNezShorts Iâve used that argument at a disciplinary, management argued that the member had breached a technical point of health and safety (that is something that a person doing their job should be trained in but is not expected to be general knowledge). They argued that they believed the member had been given the training but I was able to show that their own records showed that the member had not. Additionally I was able to show that the member had repeatedly requested the training but had been denied time off to attend the training by their line manager.
I was also able to deploy another methodology for winning arguments not covered in the video, which was taught to me by a legal executive I was representing in a pay dispute. If you are arguing a case in front of any sort of third party, you can improve your chance of winning by demonstrating an advantage, or removal of a disadvantage, or that third party by deciding in you favour. In this case I was able to present, prior to the hearing, as part of the argument that by finding against my member the senior manager who would hear the case would be exposing the organisation to legal jeopardy for failure to ensure that frontline staff were appropriately trained, but, by finding in favour of my member and then bringing a disciplinary against the manager for failure to allow this member, amongst others, to attend necessary training then they could be seen to be dealing with a rogue manager who had failed in their duty of care to their staff and others. The Head of HR called me a âSneaky B****rdâ for that, I told him that from him that was high praise.
@@StephenBoothUK Im saving your comment for future reference...this is gold!! In the ET I mentioned the company failed to disclose any relevant fire safety training records to prove that the employee was trained. The fact is, there were no records to disclose because the employee was not trained. Instead the company claimed at ET that they believed the employee was trained and the judge simply said it doesnt matter if employee was actually trained or not, it only matters if company believed he was trained when they sacked him. Then 12 months after that a fire risk assessment was leaked from the company which established that the company knew at the time they sacked employee that no one had done the relevant training...but it was too late to do anything about it.
This is just brilliant. This can be applied to almost anything in life even outside court. Including a professional one in general as it is something many might have to do, day in, day out at work or in board rooms or even decisions about best way to treat a patient as it is the case with me. etc...moving from the substance, any tips about the style, ie the language, certain vocabulary that you find persuasive? This might be another video I know. Thank you a lot for the insight
Thanks you for the comments! Yes thereâs a lot to be said for style and just something about the way things are said that can be persuasive! Video to follow! đđ
Of course my learned friend, (I don't use the word winning as it is misleading) it is persuading a judge to prefer your argument as the law is already decided. The more points, the more evidence which points to the points, the balance of probabilities (the civil standard of proof) will fall in your favour.
I do a similar thing every day, I call it sales. We have many of same parts of the âargumentâ in a sales strategy against a direct competitor
As a former salesman of 40 years I agree...of course negotiating a deal depends on what you do say (& what you donât say!) đ
@@AndrewClark4MarkRacing đŻ agree
What I enjoy about this channel, is that itâs simple to understand, and gives you pointers to go and do your own research. Plus I am not a barrister, but I have been stopped and arrested for having an offensive weapon over 10 times, and I realise that I know more about the Law than the average Police Constable. By the way, I am a Sikh, I wear my Kirpan (religious dagger) and I am protected by Law (criminal justice act 1988 section 139).
Thank you for your kind comments!
I have great respect for Sikhs, as they do a lot of care in the community and charitable works...
Why do you have to carry a dagger?
It doesn't matter what you believe - it matters what you can prove?
Isn't that just sophism?
@@rayfinkle8860 He already said - his religion.
An argument isn't just contradiction.
Yes it is.
No it isn't!
This is such a useful video - thank you for posting. One of my favourite things to do when I'm helping friends or family with legal cases is finding "Authorities" (previous cases/High Court Judgements) that closely relate to their particular case and I've often found that when quoting from the relevant judgement it usually does the trick of winning the case or winning the argument
Can't wait for this one. I hope it works on wives. đđ
No because this works based upon logic.
Haha, no. Trust me on this no it does not. You have one option and one option only, admit she's right and move on to the next example of what you've done wrong. Rinse and repeat. This is your life now. Enjoy
As a wife of 35yrs I can only say, đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
Not a chance đ€Ł
@@GrumpyDragon_aka_LjL as a wife for that long, I'm pretty sure that's not the only thing you can say đđ
Can you do a video on what you can put on a farm without planning permission (polytunnels, fish ponds, rice terraces, etc)?
Definitely going to have to try this out on my wife !!
Good luck with that đ
I suggest a different course, sometimes play to lose.
Women, especially the married sort, are master rhetoricians. They don't need to be right or wrong, they just need to do that thing where they make you feel undeniably stupid. It gets us every time đ
it does not work on wives, you should know this by now
I wish you luck sir, I will remember you as a brave and courageous man!
this is probably the best video ive seen on this channel. massively helpful for an upcoming dispute. being clear about exactly what your argument is about in a factual way and avoiding anything that can be construed as opinion will help the adjudicator to towards the decision that you want them to make. brilliant advice, thankyou!
I'm currently disputing a bill from an energy company, centred around the unsuitability of a smart meter they've installed. The strategy I'm employing is exactly as outlined here, a bit at a time and win each element before moving to the next, rather going in with all guns blazing and getting confused.
I'm the sort of person who can see the other side of any argument so I argue the point with myself and modify my own argument to make it difficult for the other party to argue against me.
Excellent video. Obviously simplified, but for a 10 min video, very informative and useful. This seems like a really good channel to 'learn some stuff'.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just watched this and going to put this into practice today with the GP, to get a note of correction put on my medical notes. Hopefully I will get out of house arrest today!
By the way the call never happened apparently another medical emergency which required the phone consulting Dr. Waited 45 minutes and nothing,. Can I change Dr and get my medical records to tell the truth?
@@margarethill1071 Sorry I only just noticed this - wouldn't your requirements fall under Principle 4 of the DPA 2018?
(I'm not a lawyer/barrister, but I do have some knowledge of the DPA since the first one in 1998.)
Iâve learnt so much from you and your channel thank you đ
Thanks for sharing. You're very interesting and I appreciate you offering your expertise
Thanks for watching and the kind comments!
Thank you very much for this concise video addressing a broad subject. Priceless knowledge.â€
Winning the argument is easy, just call the other person a racist, and youâve won!
Or call them a Gammon and you lose đ
@@moonshinepz the term Gammon means an unthinking piece of white meat and is Racist.like calling a black man a piece of coal.So I win. you lose
Unless they call you a peadophile!
I like Laurence Foxâs reply to the racist taunt, âlist your evidence or face my lawyersâ.
@jo king BBB help! đ€Ł
Arguments are not about wining, just discovering the truth or helping others do the same, ideally without bias or ego. I recommend to apply the same mindset to life, living with growth mindset.
I tested this thoroughly in many ways, including esports and got much better results when practicing to learn instead of playing to win, even in ranked games in the top 10 world, of multiple esports (Starcraft 2, Hearthstone & a few smaller ones as well as stuff like chess, physical sports puzzles etc). I also tested really caring and stressing for years and got much worse results. Now growth mindset comes naturally and its doing great for me.
One of the best videos so far. đđ»
Excellent channel, brilliant delivery
Thank you!
I have a debate on a motion in council coming up in a fortnight...I'll listen to your clip again in preparing my argument against the motion... thanks
While I do try and put forward a fact-based argument, I am fortunately of an age where I can drop the insistance and be wrong when I am. Two things often occur. I learn something or because I have listened I hear the real objection or problem and am able to respond to that. Which is far more effective than trying to browbeat someone with information they might not see as relevant. I am not a barrister, but well aware that I have won arguments simply because I can browbeat someone. No one wins in that situation.
When constructing an argument it is very important to think about who you are trying to persuade. You should do this step first before deciding what evidence to seek. For example, Barristers will frame an argument differently in a jury trial than when arguing before a judge alone.
Is there any lawyer or group in london who are fighting the really crap leases tenants in flats are being given when they try to extend the lease?
I just watched your video - great as always and the breakdown of the Theft Act was very informative as I always cite it as one long sentence. I'm looking forward to the live stream.
In this example of car manufacturers, it is rarely that simple. One will never be better at everything so the best will depend on who you ask.
This is very good. However, 'no emotions' is not the way I go about it. Emotions are human. And they help you convince the humans that are the Magistrate and the Jury.
My approach is: no emotions when you analyse the matter and write your argument. But some emotions in your verbal delivery will help.
Brilliant channel! How I wish I could have you on my side for the tenancy predicament I'm in and can't get any legal support for unfair eviction and landlady cut the electricity supply to attempt to force me out of workshops & starts a witch hunt against me and lies to the police and her solicitor and I'm having to try defend myself and now her solicitors taking me to court to claim landslides legal fees!!you couldn't make it up and it's about ruined my world! I will utilise parts of this video in the hope I can prove my side of the story.... Which is the truth and I have all the evidence.đ
I have had many arguments about politics, and it matters not that I can present hard evidence to support my case, because facts that contradict firmly held beliefs are ineffective. After I've demolished all the other persons arguments with factual evidence, they either walk away, or resort to insults or threats; it is the easiest way to lose friends.
also, I'd substitute 'opinion' for 'claim'. For most people are not really capable of opinions; rather, they make lazy claims "this is good, this bad, this is X, etc", without supporting the claim with anything, or with much
Thank you for your concise points on how to best present any case on its merits. I Iâve in New Zealand and twenty years ago I was imprisoned on evidence that can now be seen as having been perjured. During this SFO presented, trial my defence counsel two QCâs abandoned my defence. I was then compelled into pleading guilty.
The offences were property law and incarceration was not supposed to occur and or considered likely. However due to two witnesses one being a Solicitor and another being a Barrister, I was sentenced to three years and nine months. Whilst in prison I was able to find sufficient information revealing serious anomalies with the testimony that had been adduced by these two legal practitioners. Accordingly the NZ Police supported my release on parole and I spent several years assisting them with investigating my complaint.
Search warrants were served on the Bank whoâd made the allegations against me and against the solicitor whoâd been the Crowns Star witness. Numerous files and documents that had never been disclosed to the Court in discovery were subsequently brought to light.
However during the Police investigation it had also become apparent that the Crown Prosecutor had altered and removed passages from the solicitors brief of evidence. This testimony pertained to his legal executive, this woman was interviewed by the investigating officer and her evidence did not support what this solicitor had asserted to. It thus became apparent that removal of this evidence was carried out so as to ensure that the Crown case would not be challenged. It is in this regard that the Police were unable to bring any prosecution.
Last December, the Police finally handed over copies of their search warrants plus, the evidence revealing the perjured assertions of three witnesses whoâd deceived the Court.
Understandably, I have lost faith in the justice system and have entrusted the services of an ex SFO forensic accountant and will be seeking to resolve this matter through mediation.
Should either of these three defendants refuse to attend mediation, I will be instructing my previous defence counsel three QCâs to file formal complaints with the NZ Police.
Your video was very helpful particularly in regards to removing emotion and opinions. Luckily in this regard the documents that were recovered by the Police, speak for themselves.
Amazingly interesting and useful channel , great idea BBB and I hope itâs working for you . A topic that piqued my interest recently are the two recent stories of damage to property of someone that had annoyed the person doing the destruction . The car in the farmerâs field and the builder that knocked an extension down he built ( plus some of the house ). In both cases the papers reported that the police thought it was not a crime but it looked quite criminal to me! The farmer looked to have really hurt the car driver .
Just say okay, okay, okay đ€Ł
Is that the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
I came here for abuse
@@highdownmartin no you didnât
The 48 laws of power encourage you to win through actions, not through argument. Although it could depend on the situation, circumstances etc.
I like to say Iâm sometimes right but never wrong - everyone hates it!
I love to break down a set circumstances; and investigate both points of any argument, I believe to understand both sets of arguments and attempt to prove both will logically lead to the true facts.
Im good at winning an argument because its usually assumption that people use đ
Thank you for your input on this topic.
This makes so much sense on the surface, but it doesn't work anymore in today's society. The biggest mistake most people make is thinking the person they are arguing with is in disagreement over an issue, and ironing this out in the debate will resolve it... I'm sure you've come across the cases where people can't even agree on basic facts, and/or resort to name calling and such things when they are presented with a fact they can't deny. I wish it was as easy as gathering a few facts, showing them off, and moving towards a conclusion based off them.
I comment on disability and it's often the case that the other side do'sent want to make change happen. This is the reason why accessible homes is so difficult as with dropped kerbs.
I never argue unless I know I'm 100% right. That's why I win every argument in the end :)
How can you be sure you are 100 percent right?
@@madbikemike Well if someone told me that hot water is cold I would argue that they are mistaken.. & I would be 100% right wouldn't I... because it's the fact of the matter isn't it.
@@onenessseeker5683 would you not want to define what each was, seek some trusted statistics and gain some expert opinions rather than using your own opinions?
Surely hot and cold are subjective, what happens if the hot water tested at 49.99 degrees surely there is a scientific argument its more cold than hot?
My comment is really that you can never be 100percent right, surely you know this and therefore any reasonable person would conclude your original statement is false.
@@madbikemike Stop trying to warp things and cause an argument. Hot is Hot & Cold is Cold 100% :)
@@onenessseeker5683 100 percent hot is boiling point, 100percent cold is freezing point, surely there are 98 other percentage points that are not 100 percent certain on? There for you cannot be 100 certain and by your own rules should not be arguing? Did you watch the advice in the video?
Being able to control the battlefield helps a lot as well. In your example of two different car manufacturers A may make cars that break down less often than B but it may be that when As do breakdown it tends to be a more major repair, that has to be done at a dealership garage and require a long lead time for parts to be delivered where as Bs cars breakdown a little more often but the breakdowns tend to be minor, are the sort of thing that can be fixed at any local garage (or even the front drive by a knowledgeable amateur with a copy of the manual) with parts that can be picked up at the local branch of Halfords or similar. If you are representing A then you try to keep arguments on to the lower frequency of breakdowns and away from the high cost and complexity when there is a breakdown, but if you are representing B then you admit the slightly lower frequency of breakdowns but argue that the comparatively high cost and complexity means that the net cost of A, in terms of both direct cost and opportunity cost of your car being out of action for longer, means that B is the best option, âWould you rather replace a few belts every couple of years of the entire engine and gearbox after 5â you might ask.
Very interesting. So many think that if they can shout louder they must be right.
This all working with one condition: you have an argument with a sensible person who you can reasoning with. When you talking narcissistic people, itâs no way you can convince them. They only aim to get an emotional reaction. And when you constantly hit the wall, because they donât care what you say, you reasonably get upset, angry. And they won. Unless you can ignore them and do not try to win the argument.
Itâs like playing chess with a pigeon. They they tossing around the figures, shit on the board and think they won. You canât play with someone who doesnât keep the rules and would not accept facts.
Current tactic of the energy companies with complaints
@@bertbox69 sadly not just energy companies. Itâs widely spread and effect from public services, through insurance companies and many call centers to car salons. The rot doesnât stop, if you donât cut it off.
A brilliant piece of advice, education. Use evidence not emotion or opinion unless from an expert on the subject matter. Thank you mr BBB.
The "judicious" use of logical fallacy is also a winning tactic
Arrive late at court, and state you were driving manufacturer B's vehicle and it broke down. Had you been driving Manufacturer A's vehicle, you would have arrived early. Apologies M'Lord. Great Vid BBBđ
My friend lives on a Council Estate, been a tenant for 25 years, people moved in next door, within 3 weeks after they moved in, they were causing uproar, shouting threats and my friend and his family, his wife came close to a nervous breakdown, he and his wife came close to moving out, the police were as much use a nothing, could you do a video on this kind of scenario please?
ADVICE PLEASE. Sir, I wrote the the BBC in 2019 explaining that I no longer need or required a TV License, however I have received countless letters threatening me with Legal action, the letters are causing me great concern and are injurious to my health and well-being. May I ask if I can seek a Court order to stop these threats and harassment or is the BBC and its agents exempt from such action?
Thanks for this BBB. As someone with Bipolar Disorder and Asperger's Syndrome I have found it very difficult to explain to courts what my case is. Although I have had some success. 1997 civ 2724 in the Court of Appeal if you have time to look it up in BAILII.
Plus I have a tendency to mix submissions with my witness statement and I don't think that helps. This is going to really help with a case I have coming up next year. Thanks again.
The best way to win "at" court is to be a Man/Woman, then you never argue, you open up court following due process, and just write the truth in the four corners of your claim of right.
Then the burden of prove is on the wrongdoer, then they are the one who court controversy by arguing, to disprove your claim of right.
If the wrongdoer is stupid enough to employ a barrister, you know you got them, as they would be ruled incompetent, because they never have "firsthand knowledge, and will withdraw gracefully, to save face, as any barrister knows once he/she as taken on the case, they are paid in full, whether they do anything or not, but you can be assured they never won a single case against a Man/Woman who knows how to hold court and not lose jurisdiction by not objecting when a third-party interloper with no first-hand knowledge tries to speak, and as their client as walked in to court as an incompetent, a "ward of the court," it's a open and shut case.
When both parties are present, if they don't know the rules of court, that's not the claimant fault, it's like taking candy of a baby.
A claim once heard at open court when both parties are present is closed and sealed forever.
What Man/Woman would be gullible and stupid to answer for the legal fiction ? By even believing it exist in the first-place ? By believing it exist you have giving it life, to exist if you believe it you.
Anything written in capitalise lettering is saying nothing, to anyone who knows that no language is written in capitalise lettering that can be read, as it is written for the illerate, as it is sign language using pictures, and has to be interpreted, an irrefutable fact that can't be disputed.
But if you don't understand this is so, because you can't be bother to understand your dumb down by your education, to being indoctrinated in to their system, where they are just getting you to be a slave of your own making, they use smoke and mirrors, trickery and deceit, wake up people, don't spend your life as a person, be the Man/Woman the father in heaven meant you to be, free, and have the freedom of freewill. That's the only way your be in the book of life, "be faithful until death, and I will give you the Crown of life".
If people reading this comment doesn't believe a word I wrote, just ask this black belt barrister, he will tell you the truth, won't he ?, and if he disagrees with the capitalise lettering is not only written for the illerate. Just get yourselves a copy of the " Chicago manual style," that they use in courts.
We would all be babbling if we don't adhere to a language that conforms to a set of rules called grammar, and that is set out in, "The Chicago manual style," and " The Oxford manual style," or what manual style of English are they using ?
I believe now their cutting back on legal aid, these people might wake up and realise they are being used to dupe, people in to answering for the legal fiction, when these people should be telling them the truth, the only language the capitalise lettering is sign language, the language of the illiterate, and it's the language that corporation's use, there's a sign above every shop, department store, any business.
So, if you can read it, it proves your illerate, and your easlier fool, just like cheap magician trick, of find the lady, it just trickery and deception from start to finish.
Once you know it's an illusion, a trick, and the trick they use, it's your fault if you assumed they wouldn't deceive you, then who's fault is that, not the Grifter fault, that just their job.
All because you never bother to see through the deception. Why not gain the knowledge, educating yourself to be able to be competent at your own "court of record," when making a claim of right.
A Man/Woman should know their rights, if you don't, you haven got any.
People in authority, so-called authority, can't tell a Man/Woman to do a damn thing, and they know it, but it doesn't stop them trying, how many do know how to open up court, and the process ?
Hi Ya, I hope you don't mind. But I've said to a few people to check you out as you come across as a good guy and I get a good vibe.
Facts, a knowledge of logical fallacies and an understanding of the psychology of your opponent, and the audience helps, but I am sure presentation and appearance is very important as well. Two people could make precisely the same argument, but one of them would be more persuasive than the other. There are also some issues that are equivocal, qv Father Henry Garnet.
Great advice keep up the great work đđ»âïž
Loving the clarity!
"There are many ways to win an argument but emotion and opinion will not help."
I beg to differ in a very specific way.
Working governmental law cases I've found it works well to bury a subtle insult towards the opposing side's lawyer in the reports and filings. Too many of them seem to be arrogant, take offense and will indulge in massive rants that eat up time of the hearing, so they lack time to make an argument proper. In one cases I've seen a judge rolling eyes and leaning back as the rant about me proceeded.
Sure enough time was then up, hearing over and no argument had been made by the opposing side. The result was de facto a default judgement in our favour.
Another way of doing this is to make a perfectly fine argument but deliberately mislabel it in legalese. Like "This illegal building has been there for longer than 20 years and has thus been legalised". Typically the lawyer zooms in on "20 years doesn't automatically legalise".
Well it doesn't, you just can't enforce against it being illegaly any longer, and since you can't just leave it in limbo is why it MUST then be legalised in the next zoning plans.
But the judge knows that, has already clicked the mislabeled argument into place in his head, while they waste their precious time argueing semantics that don't affect the case.
But maybe that's easier because I'm not a lawyer but an expert-witness and I can afford to argue I know better on my area of expertise than people who also need to know procedures and other areas of law.
I was married to my wife for 16 years - I NEVER EVER won a single argument with her! [I realised very early on that like most women - she is NEVER EVER wrong!]
Thank you for a great video!
A very informative video. Applicable when objecting to planning applications. Often arguments are lost because objectors use opinions rather than demonstrating that an application âfactuallyâ does not comply with local and national planning policies.
Thatâs because if the Planning authority likes a scheme it complies but if they donât it is deemed contrary to policy.
For planning arguments you need to concentrate on how development plans, council policy & previous appeal decisions favour your position. And don't forget about "material considerations" which may be community/area specific.
I'm looking forward to this one!!
Daniel i have done court cases i am not qualified but when one walks into court one goes into win after going through all documents that the client has then from documents one has the power to win attitude and language can overturn any case
And remember, to win an argument, if everything fails, there is nothing like a good revolver.
Iv just Been in tears listening to this clip.
After 18 months of waiting to find out if I'm going to be charged or not, the only real person who knows the truth is me. No matter how good you are at winning an argument or court case worries me, I just know I'm not guilty, this now scares me to the core.
Good video. You mention though about proving facts. Facts are by their own definition fact and therefore you don't need to prove them.
Not actually true. In a case of theft, for example, it may be a fact that X took something off the shop shelf and put it in his pocket. But how do we know that? We know it because Y saw him do it, or because the CCTV recorded images of him doing it. So although it is a fact, you need evidence to prove that it happened, such as the testimony of Y or the footage from the CCTV. Otherwise, it may be true that X took the item, but if nobody saw him do it, he may get away with it.
@@igw2b Makes sense. I guess I'm stating here that a fact is a fact, irrespective of what is proven. To me, that's just what makes a case for the courtroom - but then again, in your position, that's exactly what's needed :).
This is brilliant, thank you. Iâve applied it to an argument already. Iâm not sure I won as they just stormed off! Ha. I think thatâs a win sort of. đđŒ
đđ
There is no better indication of a victory.
and to you the jury, I ask, "Does this not prove without a shadow of doubt how Flawed and Insidious the law of this land has become?"
Is this the right room for an argument? Iâve told you once, no you havenât, yes I haveâŠ
Interesting ,treble B . If anyone is called for Jury service they couldn't go far wrong by watching this video beforehand . I myself served on a jury many years ago , I found it rather interesting and would happily serve again .
I have a question ! If you have 2 different businesses but your the owner of both for example a bakery and a catering trailer could you buy your buns ect off the bakery that you own ? Thanks !
The best way to win an argument is to not get into an argument, let them waffle and stay silent.
Thanks for your help with this video its great help for me and have a great day đ
Thanks, you too!
BBB. You were considering doing a short on No Win-No Fee. Is this still a consideration?
Absolutely!
Understand the other side's argument (or likely argument) at least as well as your own. If their losing is necessarily your winning, then showing that their case is incoherent or self-contradictory, or that they are dishonest, then you win by default. So in criminal hearings the Crown's case only has to be damaged, or in a civil matter that the pursuer has not proved their case.
Oh my I can use this o.O đ€Ż after 6 years of this feelings went out the window anyway
Thank you.. so concise information.đđ
Glad it was helpful!
@@BlackBeltBarrister one day we will be sure to talk... :)
Could you please do a video on the wearing of face masks? If you are exempt who do you legally have to prove it to and do you have to wear a lanyard or visor? Thank you.
Funnily today I was asked to show prove
That I am exempt from wearing a face covering
I politely said to them I don't have to show you prove
Sorry, I'm curious. As someone who is exempt from wearing a mask, how do you feel about people who aren't exempt but claim to be? How could we go about knowing which is which?
@@marylynch951 that works until it doesn't, and the person throws a fit.
@@dakrayus6519 Iâm exempt, but personally have absolutely no problems with people not wearing face masks who are just standing up for their civil liberties.
@@wendyw5776 But do you have the right to endanger others?
Excellent advice for my situation Today a car dealership did my service n MOT n brake s . They sent me out and the breaks failed, on my way home, I'm ok and made it home but very shook up,, I got a mech to tell me WTF rear brake caliper house one pin out and the other hanging out. Can anyone give me some advice please đŹđ§
If an electrical inspection company on behalf of the local council book a visit causing me to have a day off without pay, can I claim the loss of my wages from the electric company if
1. They turn up and say they cant do anything and need to come back another day 2. On the second visit late in the afternoon cancel it and 3. On the third visit say they cant do it and need to come back another day because it will take longer to do and need to book a slot in the morning? Three days they have cost me now and still they have to come back.
Opinion. The basis for winning your argument on Twitter...
The problem with the example of using a poll to find out if whether car A or B is better is it is still opinion, Peoples opinions ore so often decided by the propaganda and misleading adverts etc put out in media and the government. The media and government have a habit of not giving facts but giving the interpretation of those facts that they want people to believe, statistics are a prime example. Unfortunately in this modern world people are not interested in looking at the facts themselves, they would rather believe the interpretation that is fed to them. Another flaw with example argument is that different people have different opinions on what a good car is. Some people prioritise performance whilst others are more interested in reliability or economy of ownership. So again it is all down to subjectivity.
Winning an argument is a terrible thing to do in social situations, and will never be acknowledged, even if achieved.
As much as I really enjoy and learn from your videos I do question that winning an argument does not involve what one believes. In many of your videos you refer to what is considered to be reasonable and what would be considered normal behaviour etc in a law court. Surely that is conjecture and opinion and I suggest is based on what the majority think? However that in itself would not necessarily make it right. As a crude example many people thought that black slavery was perfectly fine although contemporary opinion would contradict that. Globally the white population is technically the "ethnic" minority. Facts and opinion are two different things that can affect the outcome of the same argument.
Best and Better arguments... have to first agree the criteria against which the measurements should be assessed i.e. what does "Better" actually mean (and without a concrete requirement this usually comes down to someone's opinion). Otherwise it just becomes an exchange of facts and figures with no way of assessing which is actually "better."
A jury consists of twelve people chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.
Unless you have an activist in the jury
another note, surely, when you vehicle is "TOWED",
This is also "Taking without consent" ?
Very interesting and unique channel đđđđ
Facts reside on the surface; truth is often found just beneath
Seems like truth may not matter. Winning the argument is key. Like a game of chess where the pawns are sacrificed. The pawns are the ones who probably know the truth and who rely one the outcome of the argument.
Watching this after self-representing in county court expecting a second-rate solicitor only to get absolutely destroyed by an Etonian barrister
You see this is the sort of argument that someone in the legal profession would use when in fact reality does not have logic, when arguing with an ordinary person, they like many others do not like to lose, it does not matter whether you are right or not, it doesn't matter whether you have facts or not, but most people when faced with the fact that they have lost the argument and therefore 'face' will either change the subject or insult you, (which is another form of changing the subject) thereby hoping to win THE ARGUMENT by introducing something totally irrelevant and hoping to score points therefore walking away and saying, I was right cos I won the argument. In most cases the ordinary person in the street is not interested in facts, just winning their point of view.
I need a barrister . I have been searching for a solicitor for ages. 2016 case of police harrasment , intimidation, provocation resulting in a basic DnD . Why it resulted in 24 hrs , court , falsified crb . Recently they upped their game 2020 2021 . Two separate arrests for quit literally nothing . 60 hours in a cell , air port arrest , holiday arrest . Flaunting human rights. By 24 hrs 24 hrs across bourghs . All around hate in a uniform
bit.ly/Police_Complaints
The best way to win an argument in the comments is to use SHOUTY CAPS and plenty of name calling. It always works. Every single time.