Sunday, December 13

On Constructive Debate and Loserthink

In the political sphere I've seen  a sentiment out there that there is "no point debating" because you won't change anybody's mind. I think this is a very wrong-headed thought in general, though can see the point based on the quality of many debates engaged in today. However, bad examples of pseudo-debate should not mean that we should abandon debate altogether, for therein lies madness. Rather, we should all commit to fixing debate, starting with ourselves.

And lest you think I am pointing the finger at other people, know that I am also and mainly pointing a finger at myself. I observe myself engaging in unhealthy, unhelpful, debate practices. I am quick to anger and exchange barb for barb, insult for insult, rather than turning the other cheek, de-escalating, and patterning good debate practice. In the emotionalism I sometimes engage in bad thinking. Sometimes I have been known to even throw the first slap myself.

Healthy, polite debate is a major civilizing influence. The alternative to talking things out is physical violence. In the words of Winston Churchill, in response to a critic saying all his attempts at diplomacy amounted to was "jaw jaw", he replied "better jaw jaw than war war".

It is true that often your points will not sway your debate opponent. They have likely heard many of your points already, and have already passed judgment on them. As well, as human beings we have massive amounts of so-called "confirmation bias". Once we've made up our minds on something, our minds will twist every fact except the most blatant into conforming to our point of view. We will sometimes resort to some great mental gymnastics to make a fact fit our beliefs.

For the most blatant facts opposing one's point of view, where no amount of gymnastics can bend it into submission, something called "cognitive dissonance" sweeps in. Our brains are incapable of processing this new, contradictory fact, and it's like the computer in Star Trek malfunctioning. You see "word salad" coming out as the next argument, or the fact being totally ignored as if it wasn't there.

I would argue that some of the effects above are not as bad as they seem. I will often debate a point fiercely, seeing myself engaging in likely confirmation bias and even cognitive dissonance, yet keep going as a form of advocate system, such as is practiced in a court of law. Make an argument until it is completely exhausted in order to draw out all possible arguments on both sides. You won't hear a defense lawyer, mid-court-battle, say to the prosecutor, "well that's a damned fine point you have there". Rather, he will stretch to find something that counters the point. This is good.

Realize that the debate is not only, or even mainly, about the debaters. It is also about the audience. Those who have not yet made up their minds strongly at all, and can still be swayed. By hearing the two debaters go at it, most of the facts and arguments get uncovered, and the audience gets an intuitive sense of when confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are kicking in more for one or the other of the debaters.  If one side descends to insults and personal attacks more quickly than the other, this also helps the audience get a sense of which way they lean. All of this helps them form a decision, like the jury in a criminal trial.

It is not always the case that people's minds get made up based on listening to two opposing points of view debated vigorously.  All too often we are "programmed" into our beliefs, and likely more so today than at any other time in history. Much of the information we are presented is one-sided propaganda. If something is said often enough and forcibly enough, human beings who have no pre-conceived strong thoughts on the subject will be swayed. It is especially compelling if one's entire social circle is of a certain point-of-view. Human beings desperately want to fit in, and are afraid of being cut out of the herd, and will conform. It will not be a conscious cynical conformation. We will develop a genuine, fervent, conviction. It's how we are wired.

If opposing facts and argument can be hidden through this initial period when the mind gets mostly made up, then confirmation bias will kick in hard, and keep us there despite compelling objective facts and evidence to the contrary presented at a later time.

I imagine many of you reading this are saying to yourself, "Yes! Exactly! That's exactly how my political opponents think!" If you are saying that to yourself, you have utterly missed the point. We are all subject to those forces. It is of minimal value having the thought that the other side is subject to this. The valuable thought is that you yourself are subject to it.

Some of the most brilliant thinkers we recognize as people who have deeply escaped this trap. Einstein in 1905 when he came up with his Theory of Relativity, Newton before him, and Galileo before him. Charles Darwin on evolution. Ghandi on non-violent opposition. Jesus. Buddha. I could go on.

While none of us are Buddhas or Einsteins, we can strive to be more like them, and escape our thought shackles.

As I said, I believe there is some utility in "sticking to your guns" during an argument, even when you are starting to doubt inwardly. This helps drive out the full argument. The wise person will leave the debate and come back for a round 2 with modified views. And any audience to the debate will also become better informed as well. In this way, we seek truth.

So what are some rules we can abide to in order to elevate the tone of our debates? Here are a few that come to mind. I'd be interested in yours in the comments.

1. Be polite, avoid personal attacks or things that can be easily perceived as personal attacks
"You're evil and stupid" is something to be avoided. You can think it (though you ought not to), but certainly don't say it or write it. Even "that idea is stupid" is only a hair's breadth away from "you are stupid". Don't say the idea is stupid. Respectfully disagree and marshal your reasons why. The preparatory comment does not add anything.

2. Assume good motives, don't get addicted to moral outrage
Assume your political opponent has good motivations. They want to better the world and so do you, you just have different beliefs about how to go about doing it. Don't jump to the conclusion that your opponent is a communist, or a racist, or whatever is most morally outrageous to you. A real communist will tell you that is what they are, directly. A real racist will tell you that is what they are, directly. And if in doubt ask them, and believe the answer.

3. Don't generalize
Avoid saying "all people in this group behave this way". It is unlikely to be true, and can be insulting to those who identify as belonging to that group.

I think if we followed those simple rules, we get an 80% improvement in debate already.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy a little insult slinging and find it to be amusing, but that is a thing in and of itself and if done well,cleverly, and in a good-natured way, can contribute some lighthearted comic relief to the debate. I have in the past, and will continue in future, to give as good as I get, because that's who I am. But I never want to be the instigator, and you are all free to call me out if I am the one instigating any of the above beyond some good-natured ribbing.

Beyond just these proper rules of conduct, we turn to constructive and destructive ways of thinking. Scott Adams, the writer of Dilbert, in 2019, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

The book is full of pithy little "rules" illustrated with examples in contemporary society. I find there to be a lot of wisdom in it.

He starts by saying loserthink isn't about being dumb or about being underinformed. Loserthink is about unproductive ways of thinking. Scott says people in different fields, such as psychologists, artists, historians, engineers, leaders, scientists, entrepreneurs, economists, all have different methods of thinking that we ought to gain some familiarity with. If you have been exposed to the thinking styles in only a few of these disciplines, you will have large gaps in your ability to think productively about the world.

My top 20 favourites of his pithy little rules are as follows.

  1. If your opinion depends on reliably knowing another person's inner thoughts, you might be experiencing loserthink.

  2. If you think you can gaze into the soul of a stranger and see evil, you might be experiencing a loserthink hallucination.

  3. It is loserthink to imagine you can accurately discern the intentions of public strangers. It is better to ask people to clarify their opinions and accept that as the best evidence of their inner thoughts.

  4. If your response to a disagreement is to assign your opponent a dismissive label, you have surrendered the moral and intellectual high ground to wallow in loserthink.

  5. Don't believe every member of a group is as bad as its worst 5%.

  6. If you can't imagine any other explanation for a set of facts, it might be because you are bad at imagining things.

  7. If you believe you learned an accurate version of history in school, you are probably wrong.

  8. If you are wondering how skeptical you should be about expert advice on complicated issues, keep in mind that the next expert probably has no respect for the last expert. And vice versa.

  9. Be skeptical of any experts who have a financial incentive to mislead you and almost no risk on their end.

  10. We live in a world in which it is dangerous to ignore the advice of experts, but it is almost as dangerous to follow their advice. The trick is to know when the experts are the solution and when they are the jailers of your mental prison.

  11. If you analyze a complicated situation with multiple variables in play, and you conclude that only one of them was decisive, there's a good chance you are practicing loserthink.

  12. If you find yourself obsessing over the accuracy of facts versus the direction those facts will lead you, you might be in a mental prison.

  13. If you are reaching a general conclusion about a big topic by looking at anecdotal evidence, you are engaging in loserthink.

  14. If you have a strong opinion about a proposed plan but have not compared it to the next best alternative, you are not part of a rational conversation.

  15. If your opinion considers only the benefits or only the costs of a plan, you might be in a mental prison.

  16. If you find yourself experiencing certainty in a complex situation, you are probably experiencing loserthink.

  17. Arguing for fairness is loserthink because no two people will agree on what it looks like.

  18. If members of your group discourage you from listening to opposing views, it's time to plan your escape.

  19. Agree with people as much as you can without lying, and you will be in a better position to persuade.

  20. You can't get to the right answer until you frame the question correctly. And partisans rarely do.

I highly recommend the book. It is a short read and really revs up your mind and bursts mental bubbles. Warning - if you believe that "all Trumpers, apart from the useful idiots, are evil white nationalist nazi racists!" or "All the left, apart from the useful idiots, are evil globalists seeking Communist world domination!" the book will induce serious cognitive dissonance in you possibly requiring medical attention ;-)

31 comments:

  1. Of all your political posts (not that this one is political), I completely agree with this one. Appreciate the fact that you took time to reflect on your own biases.

    For me, it is about what I consider moral and most of my points of view on right wing political positions center around the fact that I find whatever right wingers advocate for, fundamentally, immoral . Particularly racism and immigration (because I am a non white immigrant). Maybe advocating for something immoral isn't their intent. Maybe I ought to empathize and put myself in their shoes to understand why they are against immigration (or something else) and they probably ought to do the same, to understand my experiences as an immigrant (or other positions).

    -Rubber Doll

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't speak for all the right, but I think my views are fairly mainstream right.

      On immigration, we believe immigration laws should be enforced, including the UN definition of refugees. If the people want to change them, they can do that lawfully. For legal immigration we think it should be more merit based, like we have in Canada, and have sensible limits decided upon democratically. After that, we welcome immigrants with open arms and celebrate them.

      On racism, I really don't know anybody mainstream right who advocates for racism. The left interpret certain things as racist, and the media pushes that narrative, but there is always a different interpretation that is not racist. Eg as for immigration above.

      Delete
    2. Immigration is actually a multi-part discussion. Legal immigration, illegal immigration, asylum seekers/refugees - they are very different processes, discussions. Citizens wouldn’t know about any of these (I mean why would they, they are citizens), legal immigrants wouldn’t know anything about asylum seeking or being a refugee and refugees wouldn’t know anything about legal immigration (other categories like skilled workers etc).,

      But politicians push false narratives about immigration. Especially anti-immigration rhetoric tends to leverage tribalism to create an us vs them argument. “They are coming here to take our jobs. America First!” , “H1B visas are driving wages down!!”, “They are bringing crime or terrorism" etc., Couldn’t be farther from the truth - especially about H1B visas there is so much of nonsense out there - BOTH by trump and by bernie mind you.

      My views are solely on legal immigration. Particularly in the US legal immigrants are forgotten because the focus is always on illegal immigrants.

      I dont think that either a strictly merit based immigration system or a strictly family/employment sponsorship based immigration system work by themselves. I am saying that since I have been an immigrant in the US and am now in Canada (for good).

      Family/Employment sponsorship is ineffective because whether you get to immigrate or not is not based on your own qualifications but someone else's good will. What this results in is extreme uncertainties. Especially for employment sponsorship. You essentially become a dog on a leash. VERY anxiety inducing.

      Similarly a merit based immigration system assumes that immigrants have to forget their parents and other important family members abroad. Which also doesn’t work.

      You have to have a merit based immigration system with ways to reunify (sponsor) immediate family members - parents, grandparents, spouses and children. Canada does this to an extent (I still think the parents and grandparents sponsorship could be better designed).

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
    3. Yes, I agree with all you say. It's a complex issue and no simple summary does it justice. I would say the main tension is on people who wish to bring in the maximal number on humanitarian grounds, versus those who want to bring in some of that, and some chosen specifically to benefit the country, but not so many that it undermines what makes folks want to come to North America in the first place.

      Delete
    4. I agree. Its important to have an effective and fair immigration system while ensuring it gives citizens enough time to accept and integrate with immigrants and the cultures they bring as well. Even as an immigrant there are certain areas of Toronto, I dont prefer to live in, because it feels too much like home. Nothing against home or my people, but whats the point of moving to Canada and then living like I used to back home? But I do think Canada over the last couple of years has infact upped its criteria - primarily because of trump. A lot of immigrants to the US are now moving to Canada - which is good, and there is ridiculous competition these days. These immigrants are already integrated into North American culture, so it is easier to transition between the US and Canada. As was my case.

      Delete
    5. Well welcome to Canada and Toronto!
      I think you have a healthy attitude. Absolutely keep the best parts of your culture and connection to it strong, while also adopting the Canadian culture (whatever that is! But we all get a feel for it).
      And immigration restrictions, keeping it to a manageable level, tends to help new immigrants.

      Delete
    6. Haha I was born and raised elsewhere but I always felt out of place in my own country for a variety of reasons. The only things I carry over are probably food, and my native language haha. But I feel I am actually more westernized than my own culture - which is part of the reason I moved here haha. And I have never been happier. Thank you :)

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
  2. This country is so divided that what you say I agree, but I don't see it happening. I was labeled a liberal because if don't care for Trump, I was called a Closet Communist because I'm a Democrat who is a Liberal. On the person who called me a liberal, did not know me, never been introduced, I just responded She did not have the educational level to discuss this. It shut her up, opened her mouth, her husbands said about time somebody put my wife in her place. I have voiced my opinion with you on this blog, but I have worked very hard to say nothing. I want people to have their own views, but I do not like being labeled, especially when you don't know me. When families have broken up and friends have broken up and even businesses refuse to do business with certain people, we have a problem. So I'm working to just not say anything, if needed agree and then move on. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Jack. I used to stand on a soap box earlier on but have learned not to say anything. I only say things on here because am anonymous haha.

      -Rubber Doll

      Delete
    2. I hate labelling people and putting them into groups. I like discussing individual ideas one at a time.

      Delete
  3. I can start an argument with all the ideas presented above and after receiving shrill nonsense in return, I go for plan B, finger around their necks. My education in how to argue came from Gerry Spence How to Argue & Win Every Time. He never lost a case.

    Thanks for presenting a sane way to discuss differences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's frustrating when you are there to discuss rationally (understanding that vigorous argument sometimes gets spicy!), and the other has a closed off mind and just hurls abuse.

      Thanks for the book reference! Just got it.

      Delete
  4. Julie, your points are all correct as far as I am concerned. As I see it, one of the most alarming developments is the movement to shut down speech, to refuse to consider it, to ban it, bar it or (in the case of print) burn it. We see this in abundance on college campuses (consider the colossal irony there, isn't that of all places where different viewpoints and theories should be entertained in the pursuit of knowledge?). We see it on social media, where Facebook and Twitter exercise censorship over viewpoints they disagree with. We see it in the cancel culture, where if you say something politically incorrect, it may cost you your job. We actually had a case in California where a woman lost her job in a school because the students had a "sick out" to protest some left wing cause, and she posted on social media that the school was running better in their absence. That was enough to get her fired. It's time to let all the opinions in and not to use the phony excuse that they are "hate speech" in order to suppress them. It's gotten to the point where anything the Left doesn't like or agree with is "hate speech."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the same can be said about the right. What they think is not racist most probably because of confirmation bias, is actually quite racist in the left's opinion. I am sometimes amazed about how people on the right dont see the immorality of it all.

      Couple of counter points to gavin mcinnes and trump. gavin has contributed to hate sites like vdare and american Renaissance that have published white nationalist and “race realist” views. Infact American Renaissance is owned by that guy jared taylor I think. So given his political leanings, what he has said and how he has acted, he is termed a racist. Similarly trump. trump was labeled a racist even before his fine people comment. Infact I would go on to argue that building a wall is not to ensure border security, but rather a symbolic gesture to indicate - "we dont want Mexicans here”.

      There is a fundamental issue here. That issue is one of trust and morality. I (and by I, I mean myself and a lot of people on the left) do not believe that the right (more specifically the alt-right - I am actually quite accepting of conservatives) can be trusted to do the right thing (morally or otherwise). We know based on our experiences as members of minority groups, immigrants and based on our interactions with members of the right that whatever these people propose and do, hurts us and our lives. And therefore we find it immoral. The right feels the same way about the left.

      The solution to this is to admit that yes, either positions will benefit a certain group of people and disadvantage another group. But what is more acceptable and less damaging? If you objectively saw it you’d see that the left wing policies are less damaging (but more annoying). Right wing proposals on the other hand, will actively HURT minorities and immigrants - sometimes physically (after all right terrorism is the biggest cause of violence in the US today), but most of the times uppend lives, make their lives miserable by making them jump through hoops etc., I Could go on and on about this, especially about the right wing anti immigration rhetoric.

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
    2. I can't speak for the misery in men's souls that cause such problems, I can only speak for myself. I hate "groups" and "grouping". We are all individuals at the end.

      Delete
  5. Why are comments on "Roleplay" no longer allowed?
    Gavin

    ReplyDelete
  6. so one commentator says anyone any opinion from the right is immoral. One commentator says someone did not have the education to debate a topic. 1. The immoral comment is in and of itself a biased position and the lack of education shows a bias to anyone who the commentator considers uneducated. It is opinions such as those that lead to "re-education camps" and "politically correct thinking." both of which in my humble view will suppress free speech, lead to ridicule of those who may have a different opinion. One of our greatest concerns in the USA is that the country is divided along the coasts with a vast difference of opinion in the interior/ perhaps if they take your advice and read the book they may alter their perceptions. You see when things are deemed immoral, that gives the government license to ban, regulate and control and unfortunately some people are fine with that. When people think they are intellectually superior that leads to a dismissal of views contrary to their own. This is probably the last comment I will make on anything of a political nature, but I for one am tired of the politically correct cancel culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sensing some English as a second language with the "uneducated" comment. But taken at face value, yes, looking at someone's degrees before considering their ideas is unwise.

      By the way... I got your comment on the "Outed" post, except it was >200 comments which is a blogger limit on threaded comment so i could not publish it, but i read it. And yes, Toronto is a hotbed of kinky dungeons! And comments on "Roleplay" are fixed. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. bdenied - I explained this in another post. My opinion that the right (particularly the alt-right) is immoral is based on their policy positions and their impact on my life if they were to be enacted. My opinion is also based on their own doing - for example marching the streets yelling "jews will not replace us". How is that NOT immoral? I could give many more examples.

      Whenever the alt-right is called out, the response to these criticisms is always "Omg! Didn't Antifa commit violence or do xyz"? I am like what is antifa? Antifa stands for Anti-fascists. Shouldnt all of us BE ANTI FASCISTS?!! Shouldnt all of us actively be fighting these alt-right neo nazis?! Beats me!

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
    3. I do not know anyone who is conservative that would say a thing about Jewish people. Probably one of the biggest supporters of Jewish people are those of Evangelical Christian belief. So do us all a favor and tell us what policy positions you feel are immoral. There are many policy positions and frankly I do not know of any immoral ones. If you can state one/some/you might be surprised that I may agree with you. Being opposed to fascists does not mean violating their right to be speech no matter how offensive or stupid. If your ideas are sound then they will win in the debate. I was in New Orleans once and a group of Christians were marching down Burbon street opposing just about every vice one could imagine. Yet they were not violent, they merely marched, I did not agree with one thing they marched for except for their right to march and yes I came to ones defense when she was attacked by those who were angry at her. They had no right to assault her. So are you saying my defense of her right to not be assaulted is in some way supportive of fascism? Because if you are you do not know a thing about me, or any of my positions, beliefs or values. Saying it was right to assault her is like saying its ok to rape a girl because she has on a short skirt.

      Delete
    4. "Antifa" is a very sneaky name. If you are against "Antifa", does that mean you are "pro-fascist?" That's what THEY want you to believe. In fact the name is highly misleading. They are a bunch of nihilist thugs as far as I can tell. Their tactics of rioting, looting, and physical intimidation is more reminiscent of the Nazi Brown Shirts than anything else. To hell with them.

      I don't know what the label "alt-right" means anymore. It started of as people on the right opposed to mainstream Republicans. It had a hostile takeover by white nationalists at some point. So the term itself is confusing. Best not to use it.

      I think all of us despise white nationalists, or any other group that makes divisions based on race (and I include the BLM Organization in that condemnation as well, which is also "cleverly" named in the same way as "Antifa" is. One can oppose that organization, whose stated principles are pretty heinous, and still value black lives and believe there remains a problem to solve there).

      Delete
    5. bedenied - there are many policy positions that are immoral. Their policy on immigration - curbing legal immigration for tribalistic reasons. Blatant racism towards people from developing countries. Massive corruption and nepotism. There are many more examples. Also right wingers dont engage in violence? That is a laughable claim. Right wing terrorism is the single biggest cause of violence in the US today. And not to mention that woman who was run over and killed by the right wing nut at the Unite the Right rally.

      I have no problem with marching or speaking your mind though. My argument was simply on right wing policy positions that actively hurt people.

      Delete
    6. I agree there are thugs on the left too. However, I am talking about right wing violence far outnumbering left wing violence in the US today.

      Simply put, conservatives, alt-righters et all, find liberal arguments unconvincing because they do not share the same ultimate goal of maximizing human welfare and minimizing suffering based on the assumption that everyone matters. Instead they are driven by tribal instincts and end up supporting positions that actually maximize benefit for the tribal leaders (the rich and the powerful). That is inherently immoral.

      -Rubber Doll

      Delete
    7. By no means does right wing violence outnumber left wing. You are perhaps referring to terrorist attacks in the US? Yes. But if you include all the violence including the looting and the burnings in the 2020,p "peaceful protests" the number of violent incidents and property damage emerging from left wing activities is much, much larger in 2020.

      And your mind reading regarding right wing motivations is way off base. I think free speech and responsible capitalism maximizes the good and pulls everybody out of poverty, which it has absolutely proven to have done.

      I can say nasty, untrue things about the immoral motivations of you lefties as well, and with completely equal justification to your ridiculous, insulting, and divisive take. But where does that get us.

      And see rule 2: "If you think you can gaze into the soul of a stranger and see evil, you might be experiencing a loserthink hallucination."

      Delete
    8. Any act of domestic violence for political purposes is an act of terrorism. And yes, right wing violence far outnumbers left wing violence. The protests were however not political in nature - they were a demand for civil liberties - which is common sense, not politics.

      The violence initiated by protesters, were confined to certain areas, very minor considering the larger scheme of things. In a majority of cases violence was instigated by the police through use of disproportionate force, illegal destruction of property to blame protesters so they could teargas them and disperse them etc. Infact police and white nationalists and other right wingers were captured breaking stores, loading bricks into their police vehicles etc., The protesters were in 99% of the cases not just peaceful, but also protected police and others from anyone who was trying to be violent.

      BTW your stating this author isn’t appropriate in this case, because for one, I am not trying to mind read anybody and for another, everything he says isn’t correct or apply to all situations - naturally. Rather the fact that right wing ideology is not swayed by arguments that maximize human welfare, but rather by tribalistic attitudes, is the primary driving force for their political attitudes.

      Also, I was listening to Noam Chomsky yesterday and what he said (regarding holocaust denials, but could be applied to anything else in my opinion) actually struck a chord with me, in the context of this particular post. He says - "Even to enter into the arena of debate on whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's humanity.” I think for many on the left, that is at the heart of not wanting to hear right wingers out on many issues. I just didn’t know to express that thought before. And I totally agree with Chomsky on that.

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
    9. I knew something was irking me with this post and I just had to look up Scott Adams. And I find that he is a trump supporter and that he wrote this book in 2019 possibly as a reaction to recent political events to air his own political positions - cleverly concealed as a self help book. This post and this book loses credibility for that right away for trying to manipulate debate the way a right winger would want the debate to go.

      - Rubber Doll

      Delete
    10. Adams identifies as "left of Bernie". He admires and comments on Trump's persuasion technique. It speaks more about you that you would totally discount somebody's view based on your perception that he supports Trump, rather than looking at the views expressed themselves. And yes Adams wishes to "manipulate" the discussion towards rational debate which certainly favours the right.

      Delete
    11. Police did not instigate looting and burning down of buildings. And there was lots and lots of that, over months. You lose all credibility if you don't admit to large scale left-wing motivated violence.

      And you jump to extremes in silly ways. Nobody is arguing Nazis didn't murder lots and lots of Jews. Only in your mind.

      Delete
  7. Julie you say defence lawyers won’t concede a point but will “stretch to find something that counters the point.” This is a commonly held view amongst the public of how the law works but it needs an important qualification.

    This “stretch” you speak of must still have an evidentiary basis. A lawyer cannot put a submission to the court that is not supported by the evidence. This would be a breach of a lawyers duty to the court and in some jurisdictions may disqualify the lawyer from further legal practice. This is why concessions are, in fact, very common in court proceedings.

    To put it simply lawyers can’t lie to the court. Legal proceedings are evidence based. This may be why 80+ judges have so far rejected claims of a fraudulent election. Thanks

    ReplyDelete