Howdy Doody.

Hey miles, I learned something at college, too!

I'm curious as to LSB's opinion (especially the lawyers and future brettgardners) on the actual argument, in general. I figure if we spend a significant amount of time doing just that on this site, we could probably benefit from Hermagoras' breakdown, from classical rhetorical theory.

Hermagoras of Temnos's Stasis System

- Developed around 150 BCE; variations used for next 2000 years. All arguments will essentially boil down to the following four questions:

1. Question of Fact (conjectural stasis): whether something was, is, or will be.

2. Question of Definition (definitional stasis): what is the proper definition of something, its essence, nature, name, proper conception, or placement within a classification system. There are common ways to argue for a specific definition:
a) common usage: our definition has wide use and acceptance.
b) authority: our definition is used by those with highest sanction or authority.
c) good and evil consequences: our definition does not produce unfortunate results, such as confusion, error, inconsistency, etc.
d) defective definition: opponent's definition is opposed by obvious facts, is too narrow or broad, incompatible with other definitions, contains an equivocation, etc.

3. Questions of Quality (qualitative stasis): what value or appreciation properly attaches to a thing or act.  Here are some common ways to argue that our evaluation of something is correct:
a) facts: sometimes parties don't know or believe the same facts about a case: the addition of the new fact will give a new evaluation to the object under dispute.
b) example: sometimes we argue that if we believe A to be of certain quality, then we must also believe B to have the same, since it is so similar to or of the same type as A.
c) authority: something has a certain value because some authority figure says it does.
d) consistency: something in the past has been given the same value: or, principles now held require you to value this according to those principles.
e) good and evil consequences: something is of a certain quality because of the harmful or beneficial outcomes related to it.

4. Questions of Procedure (procedural stasis): argument or charge is made in the wrong place or manner and so should be dismissed.

These are the potential sticking points or issues about which you might dispute in all arguments, in descending order of strength: these may overlap or exist simultaneously in a single argument. The question of fact is usually the strongest position to defend. However, the majority of disputes will boil down to definitions, naturally. The question of quality always looms because you can step back and argue that "it's not that big of a deal, ..." However, if you skip the first three sticking points, your argument will most likely be ruined.

I think this accurately describes the majority of disputes anywhere, so I thought I would solicit opinions.  As always, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.