So you’re going to argue your case. Do you know why they welcome this approach?

The public legal system encourages the players to argue the case or argue a point. But have you ever thought why this is so? Is there a problem with this approach that undermines your position? Well, yes there could be depending on the capacity you’re in.

Remember attending debating sessions in school? What happened? If you recall two teams stood up and debated a topic by putting forth a position and argued various points. Whoever made the best arguments and undermined the opposing teams arguments would usually win. In other words the adjudicator(s) could be convinced of a particular position, whether any facts actually supported the position or not. See the problem? Why argue a case when you’re up against some of the best and well resourced experts? Who by the way will be paid a good deal to drag out proceedings. You on the other hand will probably not.

What is to argue:

argue ˈɑːɡjuː/ verb

1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view. “sociologists argue that inequalities in industrial societies are being reduced” synonyms: contend, assert, declare, maintain, state, proclaim, advance, insist, hold, claim, aver, avow, reason, attest, expostulate, testify, swear, certify; More persuade someone to do or not to do (something) by giving reasons. “I tried to argue him out of it” synonyms: persuade to, convince to, prevail on to, coax into; More

2. exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way. “the two men started arguing in a local pub” synonyms: quarrel, disagree, row, squabble, bicker, fight, wrangle, dispute, feud, have a row, bandy words, have words, cross swords, lock horns, be at each other’s throats;

Argue the case

In the capacity of a creditor (on the private side), you’re there as a 3rd party with an interest in your PERSON/STRAWMAN to simply resolve the issue and make all parties whole. So why would you want to argue anything? Almost all of the above definitions are for debtors, to argue anything undermines your very purpose. Remember, you’re not there as the PERSON/Debtor, you’re there as a creditor/man – aka an authority. Why would an authority want to debate anything?

In order to maintain the creditor capacity be prepared to unlearn some foundational beliefs and be better prepared to respond to other parties by knowing when it’s appropriate to use conditional acceptances and other negotiation techniques in order to gain agreement in verbal communications.

In summary, it is advantageous for the public system to deal with persons who will argue a position as this is what debtors do, they cannot resolve anything but simply argue and pay a penalty. A creditor will resolve the issue by using the energy in their signature and ensuring there is private agreement. To develop these types of skills, perhaps when watching the latest YouTube clip of a person’s rights being undermined, think about how you could resolve the situation by putting on the creditors shoes instead. Hence, when in court, rather than pleading not guilty to a charge, understand if there are other more honourable ways to resolve it.

Some articles that elaborate on the capacity of the creditor include: How to give up your contract in court, Recommended Listening, Responding to Offers

In a future post we’ll cover conditional acceptances as they are a way to bring agreement and remedy.