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.
Quote from: BIG H2001 on January 17, 2005, 01:17:26 AMDo 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.
Do you get some kind of boner from playing virtual judge in an internet argument? This is very sad.
QuoteDo 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.