Originally posted by ThePittman
I showed you last night facts and figures to disprove your claim that were accepted by the majority that your information is incorrect so now it is your duty to refute my claim and provided information that refutes mine. This is how a debate or trial works but you don’t seem to understand that. How do you expect to be a lawyer if you can’t even understand the basic concept of debating?Also answer my question, are you pre-law or in Law School?
Law School
And no, In a court case if one side make a claim it's up to the other side to disprove it.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Acutally no, in a court of law if the other side makes a claim it's up to you to disprove it. For example they say that your client was at a certian place at a certain time then you have to prove they are wrong.
What? No. If they say your client was in a certain place at a certain time, they have to prove it. Are you really a law student? Try to think before you post.
You repeat it and repeat it, but it doesn't make it so.
(More specifically, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least that the balance of probability is on their side. They can claim that you were at the scene of the murder, that your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, and that you have a motive ... but unless they're prepared to prove each of these statements, the defense doesn't have to do anything but sit back and smirk.)
Originally posted by Starhawk
Law SchoolAnd no, In a court case if one side make a claim it's up to the other side to disprove it.
in any court of law the prosecution must produce evidence to substantiate their claim. it is then up to the defendants to debunk that evidence. the court of law cannot just pick someone at random and say "you did it" and then its up to the defendant to prove it wrong.
since you have no evidence to substantiate your claim that 90% of children who are raped go on to kill themselves, thats as far as it goes: you are without a case and laughed out of court...and quite possibly fired
a witness may be considered evidence in a court of law, but they are also subject to background checks, psychological evaluation, and cross examination. we do not have that luxury here, especially since the only metaphorical witness is also the prosecutor.
you have made a claim with absolutely zero evidence to support it. therefore the burden is on you to produce evidence to support your claim. until then its just smoke up our asses.
Originally posted by PVS
a witness may be considered evidence in a court of law, but they are also subject to background checks, psychological evaluation, and cross examination. we do not have that luxury here, especially since the only metaphorical witness is also the prosecutor.you have made a claim with absolutely zero evidence to support it. therefore the burden is on you to produce evidence to support your claim. until then its just smoke up our asses.
And I am offering him the chance to search and find the evidence to prove me wrong, a form of cross examination.
Originally posted by Starhawk
And I am offering him the chance to search and find the evidence to prove me wrong, a form of cross examination.
you have to produce the evidence first. there is none.
once you produce it, then it may be cross examined, as opposed to us simply
cross examining thin air, because you just made that figure up on the spot.
you seem to think that a claim in itself is evidence.
Originally posted by StarhawkHowever I don’t have to, it is your burden to prove your facts which you haven’t. I have done my research to debunk your claim so it is up to you to prove your claim or to try and support it; it is not my job to prove your case. I have found evidence to support my claim.
And I am offering him the chance to search and find the evidence to prove me wrong, a form of cross examination.
Also I’m not familiar with the higher education in Canada but I can not see any way that you would be in Law School, pre-law yes but it would baffle me that a Law School would accept someone that doesn’t even grasp the basics of debate. I have talked to many Law School students and I can see their skills in debate and logic where you have none. So basically I’m saying that I don’t believe you.
Originally posted by ThePittman
However I don’t have to, it is your burden to prove your facts which you haven’t. I have done my research to debunk your claim so it is up to you to prove your claim or to try and support it; it is not my job to prove your case. I have found evidence to support my claim.Also I’m not familiar with the higher education in Canada but I can not see any way that you would be in Law School, pre-law yes but it would baffle me that a Law School would accept someone that doesn’t even grasp the basics of debate. I have talked to many Law School students and I can see their skills in debate and logic where you have none. So basically I’m saying that I don’t believe you.
That's fine, and yet you still havent disproved my claim. very telling.