> As a lawyer, people always assume I argue because I need to win and prove I'm right.
> As a lawyer, people always assume I argue because I need to win and prove I'm right.
>
> Honestly? It's the exact opposite.
>
> I don't argue to validate my ego. I argue because I want you to challenge me, dismantle my logic, and prove me wrong.
>
> If you can point out my blind spots and bring a better perspective to the table, you haven't defeated me, you've just upgraded me. I get a new insight, a sharper angle, and a better way to look at things.
As a lawyer, and as someone who loves to learn, you should already know that:
1. 'Dismantling someone's logic and proving them wrong' is not a mature means of persuasion.
2. Lawyers who say "prove me wrong" are generally exhausting to deal with. (Do not confuse being unnecessarily combative as being 'principled'.)
Advocacy, in its highest form, is actually a polite discussion amongst equals. It is not an adversarial clash of "best points" or a "better perspective". Please mind the difference.
>
> Honestly? It's the exact opposite.
>
> I don't argue to validate my ego. I argue because I want you to challenge me, dismantle my logic, and prove me wrong.
>
> If you can point out my blind spots and bring a better perspective to the table, you haven't defeated me, you've just upgraded me. I get a new insight, a sharper angle, and a better way to look at things.
As a lawyer, and as someone who loves to learn, you should already know that:
1. 'Dismantling someone's logic and proving them wrong' is not a mature means of persuasion.
2. Lawyers who say "prove me wrong" are generally exhausting to deal with. (Do not confuse being unnecessarily combative as being 'principled'.)
Advocacy, in its highest form, is actually a polite discussion amongst equals. It is not an adversarial clash of "best points" or a "better perspective". Please mind the difference.