Hopefully cliche-free AA discussion. White comments invited.

[aram]

Here's one for you.  TTTChick introduces a law professor at a school you are probably hoping to get into who says there is less correlation between LSAT and 1L success, and you counter with 'I doubt it, otherwise why do schools use it.'  

The do don't they? There was an article about a professor from Columbia in the TIME magazine that expressed anti-Jewish sentiment and verbally attacked all his Jewish students. I doubt that his ideas would be considered right by the majority of the Prof. in his own Univ. I doubt that Prof. came from an Univ. that  I am trying to get into since he talked about the obligation of "public colleges" and if he is from the top 10 then please tell me which one. I will withdraw my application immediately.

[aram]

So far we've got one law professor who disagrees with you, and lets see, none that agree with you.  I'm sure you could find one if you looked for it, but you're so intellectually lazy that you simply assert that adcomms agree with you.  That, among other things, is why your argumentation fails to improve.

This is too funny. Assuming trivial things is relevant in an argument. I know for a fact that the majority of the Prof. believe that LSAT has merit when predicting one's performance in law school. Why would the system still be in place if they didn't think so? You guys sound like there is a conspiracy at work here. It's much simpler than all that.

And as for not seeing anyone that agrees with me, like I said there are plenty, you just don't want to see them because that is the nature of your argumentative skills.

P.S. I rather be intellectually lazy than actively stupid.

[aram]

I seen the profile on the Prof. First of all she is a minority. Now that doesn't take away from her argument. But I am sure whenever you hear a white person argue against AA you get very defensive. Again she has her opinion but I doubt it is the one of the majority of the Prof. at Harvard. The reason why you do not see any articles in the defense of the LSAT is because this is an established idea which most people agree with. Plus you would never look for them.

[BIG H2001]

No, assuming a piece of evidence to counter a quote by a Harvard law professor is not relevant in an argument.  Maybe to you, but try it in law school and you'll have even less success than you're having with it here.

Here's a hint:  This is a discussion with tons of public dialogue.  You could easily find someone with some ethos (no, you don't have any yourself) and perhaps a few letters after their name (Ph.D., JD, something) that could counter Professor Lani Guinier of Harvard Law School, but until you do, I'll continue to call you lazy, and I'll continue to berate your argumentation (your skills demean the word), and I'll continue to predict your failure as a law student.

For a second here, think of me as a debate judge.  If you want to keep pace with TTTChick, do a search on Google, find someone smart who did a study that shows that the LSAT is a good predictor of success, cut and paste the link into this thread, and I'll leave you alone on this one.

At that point (I'm betting you don't ever get around to it) I'll stop pointing out how you are intellectually lazy and I can move onto why you are actively stupid.

Do you get some kind of boner from playing virtual judge in an internet argument? This is very sad.

[aram]

This is the problem with all this.

What is your view? Do you agree with anything that the Prof. in question says? Just stating that you support what she says does nothing for your argument. I am expressing MY view. I attacked her views with constructive arguments you guys did no such things to my arguments. All you have done is say, "Well a prof. agrees with me than I am right". Well if Bush agrees with me, "Does that make me right"? Most of you will disagree. Call me stupid all you want. Show me your numbers, you already made plenty excuses for them.
  

[aram]

What is sad is that dude is worried about not improving his argumentation, and then continues to stubornly ignore any input about how to argue.  It doesn't take a genius to know that a law school applicant's word does not stack up to a Harvard law professor's.

According to this every law Prof. agrees with her view. LOL. This is so ignorant. It doesn't take a genius to know that a law school applicant's word does not stack up to a Harvard law professor's. According to this statement, non of the law Prof. in Harvard would agree with me. Your argument fails at this point.

Dude, who are you to teach anybody how to argue. You are a law school applicant just like me.

[BIG H2001]

Do you get some kind of boner from playing virtual judge in an internet argument? This is very sad.

What is sad is that dude is worried about not improving his argumentation, and then continues to stubornly ignore any input about how to argue.  It doesn't take a genius to know that a law school applicant's word does not stack up to a Harvard law professor's.

One professor is far from enough of a representative sample to answer the question.  I don't see why you are hellbent on discrediting everything based on such limited evidence that supports your views.

[OptimusPrime]

Do you get some kind of boner from playing virtual judge in an internet argument? This is very sad.

That is truly one of the most d!ckheaded things I have seen on a message board anywhere. It was so bad it made me finally register to say this.

[BIG H2001]

Do you get some kind of boner from playing virtual judge in an internet argument? This is very sad.

That is truly one of the most d!ckheaded things I have seen on a message board anywhere. It was so bad it made me finally register to say this.

Thanks for the feedback.

[aram]

BIG H,
It is impossible to argue here. Listen most of the people that argue against the LSAT did poorly on the test. Therefore their argumentive skills are not to good. If they were they would ace the argument section on the LSAT. All the do is claim that someone's argument is false without giving a reason for it and when all fails start calling people racist.