I hope you credited Amway Diamond Direct Distributor Dave Severn since that quote was from his 1970s speech titled "Pigs Don't Know Pigs Stink". It's on RU-vid and is a good listen. 90% has nothing to do with Amway and that doesn't come until the end. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xa4wMMOI7YY.html (Just don't join Amway)
It is a very catchy statement but there is a reason to dislike it. This mindset undermines primary responsibility to, at any given time, do everything required to achieve the outcomes you seek. Not willing to wrestle a pig to avoid getting dirty (using same metaphor) is a cowardly and limiting mindset. Decide if wrestling the pig will get you forward and if needed wrestle as many as needed. Don’t be held back by fear mentality
@@Slava-om1sz As the owner of a 175 pound pet pig, I can assure you that wrestling with a pig is not something you want to do. LOL. Seriously though, the point is that it's not about fear or being limited, it is about understanding what a challenge it is and finding a way to get the pig to do what you want voluntarily by offering it something it values... peanut butter has high value for a pig :D
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
I tried that. I was so upset about my director lying on me and the Head Doctor and head person of HR let the write up stick. I honestly believe they knew I was telling the truth but they looked out for the themselves/ mgmt first. In the end I later was asked an survey everyone gets and what I put basically got her booted out her job. She didn't get fired because she's friend with someone in HR so the lady got her a job in a different department. The lady that got her another job don't know that she been getting employees to quit and come work at a 2nd place where she is. Even though I've moved also to another department it still bothers me I had a write ✍️ up because I've never been a bad employee. I wish I had watched videos like this before.
I'm not being facetious, I like to use logic. It's amazing how often people don't use logic when arguing. I just try to spot a fallacy in an opposing view then I expose it. That's how I win arguments. Furthermore, I offer a logical argument with no fallacy. If they're too far gone I'll out-fallacy them, for lack of a better phrase.
I was taught IRAC in law school. Issue. Rule. Analysis. Conclusion. You never start with a conclusion, at least not when arguing in writing. We went to different law schools.
You don't use the CRAC method even in Trial Briefs? IRAC isn't very effective in litigation (in my experience) because it is more of a scholarly discussion rather than persuasive writing.
This is the reason there is no write or wrong in law. just persuations. Or else why would the SCOTUS be even listening to Trumps Absolute Immunity case?
Yeah, Agreed because IRAC gives us a clearer heading in terms of what you are trying to argue. It is interesting to know a different method. @@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC
Why over complicate it? Just use normal syllogism. Premise1, Premise2, Conclusion. In order for the counter argument to be valid, they have to refute the premises. If they can’t then just keep redirecting them to refute the premises. Simple.
@@stevesorenson892 Thank you Steve that was interesting. i didn't understand what Charles was talking about - now i do. Some people make a hell of a mess when it comes to teaching.
One additional rule I follow is give your opponent a way to 'save face'. Don't corner him so deeply that he will come out as a jerk, back off at the last moment and let him keep some dignity. That solves a lot of problems. Example: "I understand your anger at my being late. Technically I was not but I will try to avoid this in future"
Matthew , congratulations on the fact that you have taught us how to be civil, logical, reasonable, rational and coverse intelligently . Thank you very much .
In my earlier life as an analyst, I instinctually used this -- or a similar -- method for writing reports. The headline of the report was the conclusion. The first paragraph repeated the conclusion, then the rest of the report body offered the specific facts leading to that conclusion. I used roughly the same method when teaching, calling it the "Tell 'em, tell 'em, tell 'em" method. I taught my children to write their essays the same way. Conclusion, then facts.
To flesh out the "tell 'em, tell 'em, tell 'em" method, introduce the lesson by saying what you'll cover in the lesson. Give the lesson in detail, then give a summary of the lesson. Tell 'em in the intro, tell 'em again in the lesson, tell 'em again in the summary. Also, let's stop reading all these RU-vid comments, Counselor. You have an argument to work on. 😄
😄 Tis true. I have to go work on my own argument. I did want to first say that your comment was the exact lesson taught in Airman Leadership School. "1) Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em 2) Tell 'em 3) Tell 'em what you told 'em" Well done!
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC Well, to be fair I learned it in the Navy. At least there's one thing the Navy and the Air Force agree on; there aren't many others.
As a former law student-mind you law student, I say arguing like a lawyer outside the law court shall end up with serious business - trading blows in a free for all
Thank for you lesson I've had to give myself a crash course in UK law, especially in family law, trying to stay in my child's life. I'm American so this makes things even more challenging because their system and culture are different. I am a Litigant-In-Person arguing my cases against the ex to the judge in England. I've won some cases and lost some too, some pretty hard. This has been going on since 2019 and I'm getting a bit experienced but still have so much to learn. I can't afford law school nor is there enough time for me to apply it towards my case. My child's welfare is on the line. I just submitted my 110 page Bundle with all of the orders, statements, evidence, etc and have the Solicitor's (paperwork) part of the job done. Now it's time to be the Barrister (argues to the judge). This information is invaluable to me and someday my child will learn this from me 🙏🙏🙏
This has been very helpful. I'm a student studying citizenship for my GCSEs and I have mock trials this month. As you may have guessed my role is a defence lawyer and I am currently studying for my role. Though I don't plan to take up law at the moment, this is still very interesting and I already have a good number of notes from only half an hour. I'll return with the results of the mock trials if I remember. My class will go up against up to three schools to my knowledge, so I'm looking forward to how well my studying will pay off!
How to mess with a lawyer.....when you are on stand, continually ask them to repeat every question that they ask. Every time ask, " Could you repeat that question?" works especially well when they have to ask the court reporter to continually read back the last question. Just keep a straight face and chuckle inside. Works well with video depositions too.
I appreciate your humor, but that's not great advice. The judicial system deserves more respect, not less, and this could lead somebody being found in contempt or as hostile.
@@thedarkestowl4224 It is not humor. It is a tactic. The "system" does not deserve respect. Lawyers by trade are deceitful and practice the art of trickery. If a lawyer doesn't respect his own profession, nobody else should treat it respectfully.
@@thedarkestowl4224 The judicial system is a joke. A game played by two professionals using the client as the ball. Lawyers will do everything to chase a plaintiff/defendant from the table by driving up the cost of seeking justice, and often, a "best offer" is made outside of the courthouse.
Since the lawyer asking the question is just one person it would be "continually ask him to repeat the question." This using of the plural for a singular is a fad that has to go.
Reminds me of some older distinguished Italian guys start out with stating a shortened issue/result then go from there and swing back. Like you responded to below (f) irac is the usual objective and persuasive memoranda taught.
I always wanted to be a lawyer. This CRAC is indeed something that judges recognize and puts them at ease that you're being truthful. I helped some people present their cases in court, but some people just ruin themselves and lose the case just for being blunt and unprofessional. Thanks for sharing this video.
I like this as it's a knife likely in everyone's kitchen that should be sharpened. As with any knife that is appropriately sharpened, applied to the appropriate recipe, it will cut through the BS very effectively and feel natural and comfortable. Other situations may not feel the same way. You wouldn't use a pearing knife to cut meat and potatoes (unless it's your only knife), so learn to sharpen the knife and place in the right place to be used effectively at the right time for the right recipe.
No, thank YOU for watching. Good luck on your case. Did you happen to see our video on How Dad's Win Custody? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-keawfzYsMDs.html
Never thought of it this way….pretty cool. I’ve always looked at Propositional/ formal logic as the gold source style of forming arguments. This is definitely a form of that but unlike the branded component to it. Easy to remember
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but I did NOT have a phone and my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
Thanks. This will help me troll with more elan. Crass comments are intended to make people bristle with antagonism. By using this four step process, now I can fire off one four-head ballistic comment in one attack. Your explanation of when an argument has been won is just as important as how to effectively argue. Thanks again.
❤ This was an excellent video that was exceptionally well presented and edited. Great job! 😊❤ As someone who is about to represent herself in a divorce trial, this is extremely helpful! I realize that I’ve been unconsciously using a similar method so much of my life. It’s interesting how few people can really appreciate this kind of logical reasoning, and become defensive when their fallacies and faulty reasoning is exposed. I also really appreciated hearing the true definition of arguing versus quarrelling. 😊
If you can remember the CRAC formula, and master our 11 tips on How to Negotiate With a Narcissist, you'll be unstoppable! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mmU95swX4Qc.html
My Boi be spitting knowledge so so stay focused brothers. Please excuse the slang and thank you for this informative video please continue to release more videos and thank you.
I'm going to tell coaches i know to watch this. Some umpires are ridiculous and maybe this is a better way to approach the difficult ones. Thank you for posting this!!
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
Hello, gentlemen. How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but I did NOT have a phone and my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
@@user-bz6oz6gt6q If it is the officer's testimony that he saw the phone in your hand, but it is your testimony that you did not have the phone in your hand, then it will be his word against yours and the judge/jury will have to decide who to believe. If the video doesn't show definitively that you did not have the phone in your hand, then it is neutral evidence. Unfortunately, your facts may not be winnable through argument alone. I once had to take a similar case to a jury trial where the officer was saying one thing and my client was saying another. During jury selection, I asked if the jury would give equal weight to what my client was saying as the officer's testimony, or would they lean in favor of the officer. Most said they would favor the officer, so we ultimately busted the panel because there weren't enough unbiased jurors. The DA decided to dismiss the charges at that point. 😁
The cheap shits which are authorities make everything in the background a mess, they hide the abuses they make and how they waste peoples life leading them to nowwhere, they hang like imbecils on some connections that are not relevant for present time but the imbecils still comment about some "World War 2" when in fact they dont see the garbaje underneath their eyes, the garbage that they make. Instead to solve a real problem they keep bullshiting about other problems. They are commenting about education times when they delay that. They make only criminal acts and they dont realize how ridiculous jerks they are, the fact that they have no logic and the fact that they create nothing good. They step on human rights so in the end they want to be heros. They dont realize that are transparent stupids ?
The Master (Lawyer in French) was intentional when he said he was going to give us $80,000 worth of knowledge for FREE. This was spot on! I wish I watched this about 7 years ago, but I know it now!!! 💪🏾⚖️📖
Good video not sure how to use this when talking with my dad on the phone about how he didn’t bother showing up in my life but decided to stay away from me and my brothers. absent fathers
This is basically deductive argumentation from argumentation forms in Western Analytical Philosophy. Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true.
This is absolutely excellent. I am a retired lawyer here in the UK but of course argument is the same the world over. I have never before heard of this formula but it is gold dust and also common sense. I am presently conducting an appeal against a decision of the local health board on behalf of a close relative, and find that many of the arguments I have constructed are broadly, but subconsciously, along the lines you are suggesting. However, I shall now go back to the 50 pages or so of the appeal and refashion some of the arguments contained in it using CRAC.. Thank you.
Thank you! It is an honor to be validated by such an esteemed colleague. I'm sure you learned the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) method in law school, but they're now emphasizing the CRAC method as being more persuasive. Good luck on your appeal to the health board!
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ? I did not even have a phone. Thank you.
@@user-bz6oz6gt6q I am not sure if your question is directed at me or Matthew and whether you are in the UK or the U.S. or elsewhere and also what stage of the process you are at. Your best defence is of course that you did not have a phone which is part of the analysis part of CRAC. The Rules are unarguable in these circumstances. What is, in your analysis, is that the officer's camera is unable to provide conclusive evidence to support his visuals. He will then have to argue that the camera has a limited field of vision and how it was unable to show you using your phone, but that bit is up to him. If this matter has not reached prosecution stage, my next step would be to write to the Chief Officer of police setting out what I have said. Otherwise it's going to come down mainly to your evidence that you did not possess a phone at that time and his contention that there must be a difference between the camera and a view with the eyes.
Brilliant. Thanks. Next time number one son argues with me I will try CRAC. Although... I'm sure he will still argue with me because he loves the straw man defence... Is there a simple way to get over that?
