I don't think I understand you. Are you saying that a legal brief does qualify its conclusions and offer and respond to all arguments against it or that it uses emotive writing to cover weak points? Does calling something a legal brief mean that it does sound as though it was written by an honest man or that it doesn't?
I don't think I understand you. Are you saying that a legal brief does qualify its conclusions and offer and respond to all arguments against it or that it uses emotive writing to cover weak points? Does calling something a legal brief mean that it does sound as though it was written by an honest man or that it doesn't?
Sorry, I just reread my post and realize why it was confusing. Lawyers generally do not qualify their conclusions, do use emotive argument to cover up weak points, do not “steelman” their opponents, and do not reject parts of what their allies (clients) seek or support.
The main thing I do that distinguishes it from what a journalist or scientist should ideally do is that I begin with the conclusion and work my way backwards. In this process, most if not all lawyers resort to some or all of the things that you’ve listed as internal evidence of bias. In short, there are tells when someone is engaged in advocacy rather than truth seeking. Lawyers don’t pretend to be anything other than advocates. But when people pretending to be truth seekers are engaging in what looks like lawyering, that’s a big red flag. And those red flags seem to be proliferating these days.
Sorry for my lack of clarity in the original response.
I don't think I understand you. Are you saying that a legal brief does qualify its conclusions and offer and respond to all arguments against it or that it uses emotive writing to cover weak points? Does calling something a legal brief mean that it does sound as though it was written by an honest man or that it doesn't?
Sorry, I just reread my post and realize why it was confusing. Lawyers generally do not qualify their conclusions, do use emotive argument to cover up weak points, do not “steelman” their opponents, and do not reject parts of what their allies (clients) seek or support.
The main thing I do that distinguishes it from what a journalist or scientist should ideally do is that I begin with the conclusion and work my way backwards. In this process, most if not all lawyers resort to some or all of the things that you’ve listed as internal evidence of bias. In short, there are tells when someone is engaged in advocacy rather than truth seeking. Lawyers don’t pretend to be anything other than advocates. But when people pretending to be truth seekers are engaging in what looks like lawyering, that’s a big red flag. And those red flags seem to be proliferating these days.
Sorry for my lack of clarity in the original response.