okay in this video I'm gonna take a look at 21 tools of argument so I'm gonna
look at how to argue and win firstly argue for procedural advantage or
procedure is to apply to maybe more than one procedure applicable to any
particular conflict or dispute so obviously you should argue for the
one that's gonna give you the greatest advantage number two argue that there's
no jurisdiction in other words the decision-maker or the so-called
adjudicator or the so-called tribunal doesn't have jurisdiction to deal with
the particular issue number three argue that it is the wrong court to deal with
the issue in other words this is slightly different from number two but
you may be in the workplace relations commission or the labor court with
something with somebody who's arguing for example that have suffered the
stress-related injury that's an injury board claim it cannot be dealt with in
the WRC or the labor court - donor jurisdiction to deal with us so you know
you could argue that it's the wrong court to deal with the issue number four
something is wrong with the tribunal Easter bias is there prejudice is a
conflict of interest I'm not suggesting for a minute that the court or the WRC
or the labor court or running or else is biased or does prejudice or a conflict
of interest but it is possible and it is an argument that perhaps you could make
and also it's one that you may make in the workplace if for example do it bias
involved in an investigation or a disciplinary procedure number five frame
lis issued to suit your case there may be more than one way to frame the issue
frame the problem and obviously the best thing to do was the frame is in the way
that is most advantageous to your kids number six argue for an application of
the rules that will result in a win there may be a conflict of laws in other
words does the law in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland or the okay
apply is there a situation there in the contract where the contract makes
provision for the laws for example in Ontario Canada to apply and you're in
Dublin or Israel cross-border transnational sort of element to it
again where there may be a choice of what court ultimately would have
jurisdiction to hear the case number seven argue your opponent is wrong -
okay you might say yes I'm in the wrong but he's wrong as well and I want to
counterclaim or yes I owe the money but he didn't provide the service and
therefore I'm gonna counter claim for damages and loss number eight argue it's
not the complainants business in other words he doesn't have standing
he doesn't have locus standi number nine argue that the other party is tainted
they're not coming to the dispute with clean hands or they have contributed to
their no name by their own negligence in other words they may have suffered an
injury in your place of work or in your factory or whatever but they may have
contributed to their own injury number ten argue it's too early in other words
lesser remedies have not been exhausted in other words in the workplace they may
go straight to the WRC post it may well be procedures in the workplace where the
employee is obliged to canvass and raise their issues in the workplace first an
exhaustion so it could be harassment sexual harassment bullying or something
of that nature then you must use the procedures at workplace first if not
then you can argue that they're too early going to court or the WRC or the
labor court likewise number eleven you can argue that it's too late in other
words the statute of limitations has run and passed under out of time to bring
their claim two years for personal injury for example so if it's three or
four years then you can say that they are statute part number twelve the
burden of proof is it on the other side if it is then you need to make that
argument and you may find that you're an easier case to defend you may not have
to prove anything and the burden of proof may well be with the other side
and that is the case in a discrimination based claim for example and in many
other situations for example if the state is prosecuting you for a criminal
act then the burden of proof in a criminal situation resides with the
prosecutor who must prove all elements of the wrongdoing alleged number
thirteen argued that even if he wins he deserves nothing in other words that the
loss accruing is so trivial that the damage cost damaged cars rather is so
small and so unimportant that even if the technical breach of the
law you should not have to pay anything in other words doula party doesn't
deserve anything number fourteen argue that it has already been decided this is
the question of double jeopardy you cannot be charged twice or should not
have to be arguing twice in your own defense in a respect of the same law
alleged wrongdoing so if you've already been convicted of something or found
guilty for example in a disciplinary procedure
it shouldn't rear its head three months or six months later on each this
disciplinary should be quite separate and quite distinct but you can't be done
twice quite frankly for the same wrongdoing number fifteen argue that the
process was flawed this is the old fair procedures and natural justice argument
you could make this argument if indeed the process is flawed number sixteen you
could argue about the meaning of terms and interpretation so you know in a
contract for example or in a disciplinary proceeding or in a staff
handbook of something or is the plain meaning or is the dictionary meaning
called as original intent what's the context what's the purpose what's the
principles in other words are you looking at statute book looking at
statute law looking at Constitution you could be looking at all of these things
and arguing about interpretation what do particular terms mean likewise effect
util this means the principle that each Clause the most have useful effect and
have some intent so if there's a phrase in a contract it should it's assumed
have some intent there's a question of interpretation versus construction in
other words how many or how often are how much implied terms can you imply in
can you construct in a contract for example because it's going to be
expressed terms and implied terms next interpretation and morality does the
question of morality rear its head in terms of interpreting a contract or a
statute you need to avoid absurdity you're entitled to avoid absurdity does
the principal down Alexa specialis this means that the specific drops to general
in other words if two interpretations can be or if clauses for example in a
contract appear to be in conflict or unclear then the specific should from
the general express your universe means the express mention of war
thing excludes all others there's a rule of lenity in vague criminal rules should
be construed in favor of the accused in other words he should get the benefit of
the DOS reductio ad absurdum means if we accept your argument it will open up a
slippery slope the can of almonds and the result will be absurd so this is an
argument you can make use as well number 17 precedent precedent involves
the sensible consistency in decisions Rossi Odessa dandy is the rule of
decisions in other words previous huge made law previous decisions in the
common law jurisdiction like Ireland or the UK or the United States or Canada
Australia these decisions precedent and do hold sway star a test system is
binding precedent and the Supreme Court will obviously hold sway and from the
High Court and High Court Trump's the Seventh Circuit Court and so on and so
forth likewise with the labor court and the workplace relations commission but
precedent previous decisions previous decisions by adjudicators previous
decisions by the labor court previous decisions by courts are critical number
18 argue the facts let me control the facts you can control the law and I'll
win every time because the facts are the facts and if you can prove the facts
well then the law will kind of follow from that and there's not a whole pile
you can do about it but if I have a difficulty proving the facts then me
being able to prove that all is nice and gonna be any good if I can't control or
prove the facts then there's a number of rhetorical fix you could use in your
arguments non-secretor is something that doesn't necessarily follow from
something else and ad hominem argument is basically you saying that you're only
attacking me you're attacking the man not the ball you fail to address my
argument then there's the question of correlation versus causation many many
people confuse this but one thing does not necessarily least lead to another
there may be a correlation there rather than causation this again is some an
argument that you may be able to make there's also the argument that the other
side is drawing inappropriate reference from limited data there's also the
principle of Occam's phrase razor this is where there are two possible
explanations for a particular there's a really really complex one
involving for example Martians and then there's a simple explanation in other
words a guy is walking down the street slips on a banana skin then the simple
explanation should be preferred if faced with a choice between that and a complex
convoluted explanation embedding assumptions and questions is another
rhetorical trick when did you stop beating your wife obviously implies that
you have been beating your wife for some time
number 20 argue about substantive responsibilities reasonable person and
due diligence law versus equity form versus substance rights versus duties
conflicting values exceptional circumstances are force majeure all of
these impinge upon the responsibilities of the parties in other words take
reasonable person and take due diligence if the reasonable person acts reasonably
they will carry out their due diligence and they should for example if they're
buying a house you have a structural survey carry along if they don't do that
then they can go and sue anybody they like but there is the question that's
going to be thrown back in their face well why didn't you carry out your due
diligence you did not act reasonably you simply bought this secondhand house
without any due diligence with the right sort of a being carried out and
therefore your claim is gonna fail likewise form versus substance you know
you're serious with tax avoidance and tax evasion you see companies paying a
certain amount of tax and they may be in adherence here adherence strictly with
the law both whether it's you know whether they're in compliance with the
law in terms of its spirit as well as its legality and its various terms is to
be example there's also the question of conflicting values
there's exceptional circumstances and force majeure in other words acts of
nature which may compel you or force you to act outside the law but it may be due
to exceptional circumstances beyond your control number 21 finally words in
context you need to be behavior beware of assumptions credibility it's
critical if you are in a tribunal or in court your credibility particularly if
your solicitor is vital you know you simply cannot buy or sell
your credibility because you cannot persuade anybody with our credibility or
agreements then are they worthless pretty much if there's a dispute it's
going to be very very hard to prove the terms of the oil agreements and
possession is nine-tenths of the law what I have I hold in other words there
is a certain element of truth in that certain element of value in being the
person in possession of for example a field or a property or whatever because
the other party then if they're laying it came to us most disturb you and must
move you and most they bear the burden of proof as it were the source for these
arguments is a book that I've just read the tools of argument how the best
lawyers think argue and win by Joel Trackman that's mistake there that
should be Joel the link is in my description or in the description on my
youtube channel hope you find this video useful give me the thumbs up down below
thanks for watching and my contact details are there thank you