Winning Your Case Through Persuasive Writing: Fill & Download for Free

Understand the topic and choose a side.Prepare statistics and analysis to support your argument.Begin writing your introduction.Include a brief layout of your argument.Write the rest of your speech.Rewrite the introduction.Practice the beginning of your speech several times before the day of your debate.A basic debate outline should contain four parts: An introduction, your thesis argument, your key points to back your stance up, and a conclusion.The Basic Debating SkillsStyleStyle is the manner in which you communicate your arguments. This is the most basic part of debating to master. Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your material in a confident and persuasive way.SpeedIt is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to say what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood.ToneVarying tone is what makes you sound interesting. Listening to one tone for an entire presentation is boring.VolumeSpeaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout through every debate regardless of context. There is absolutely no need speak any more loudly than the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you. Shouting does not win debates. Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since no one will be able to hear you.ClarityThe ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. The main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the “stream of thought” which is keeping them going. It is also important to keep it simple. While long words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible.Use of notes and eye contactNotes are essential, but they must be brief and well organized to be effective. There is absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under each.When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using.Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your gaze. No one likes to be stared at.ContentContent is what you actually say in the debate. The arguments used to develop your own side’s case and rebut the opposite side’s. The information on content provided below is a general overview of what will be expected when you debate. The final logistics of how long you will be debating, how many people will be in your group, and how the debate will unfold (ie: which team speaks first etc.), will all be decided by your tutorial leader.Case (argument)- the wholeIntroduction - The case your group is making must be outlined in the introduction. This involves stating your main arguments and explaining the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. It is also a good idea to indicate the aspects of the subject to be discussed by each of the team members.Conclusion - At the end, once everyone has spoken, it is useful to briefly summarize what your group has said and why.Case (argument)- the partsHaving outlined the whole of your argument, you must then begin to build a case (the parts). The best way to do this is to divide your case into between two and four arguments (or divide your case based on the number of people in your group). You must justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it an argument. There are a number of ways of dividing up cases according to groups of arguments (eg political/economic/social or moral/practical or international/regional etc.) or just according to individual arguments if you can’t group any together. Under each of these basic headings you should then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it using the methods outlined above. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first.

I am a lawyer. All the following is my private opinion, and I'm sharing it with you in the spirit of Quora's mission to share and grow the world's knowledge. Other lawyers may have different opinions. There's no way to be sure you want to be a lawyer until you are one. And, once you're practicing law, you have invested a great deal of time and treasure in the process and it is hard to leave the practice of law at that point. But -- I have some ideas for you. Sorry this is so long. First, I'm going to tell you how I became a lawyer, and then give you some suggestions which may help you to decide.When I was five years old my uncle, who was a teacher, was studying law at night and finally he was ready for the California Bar Exam. He passed it and went to work for his first job -- I think it was an insurance defense firm. He took me to court when he babysat for my mother, and I spent much of my childhood in court watching him, sleeping sometimes on the hard benches, listening to the lawyers say 'Your Honor' to the judge, and 'I object' (etc.). You get the picture.Then he became a workers compensation appellate judge. And he rode a judicial circuit all around Southern California, from San Louis Obispo to places south of Downtown Los Angeles. He did this and took me on some of his shorter day trips. He would ask me what I thought about each lawyer's arguments. He would use me as his sounding board, and we would talk about the equities and considerations involved in every case, on the way there, and on the way back.Once we were in an elevator at the courthouse in downtown LA. It was very crowded in the elevator, and we were separated by a few people. He was very funny and he turned to me as if seeing me for the first time, and said, "Miss, aren't you going to be a California lawyer?" So I had a push to be a lawyer. My uncle. In those days it was a rare thing to see lawyers who were women. Everyone in the elevator stared at me as if I were a Martian. I probably turned beet red from the unaccustomed spotlight -- but he flicked the switch to on and I always knew I would be a lawyer.One thing I wish I knew is that being a lawyer is as diverse an occupation as being a doctor. There are so many different kinds of lawyers that when I started law school at Hastings College of the Law directly out of UC Berkeley, I had no clue what lawyers did besides litigate. That is, I thought all lawyers were litigators. And I was so unworldly at 22 when I began law school, that I didn't know what a mortgage was or how it worked.But a litigator is not the kind of lawyer I am. I send clients to litigators who specialize in the litigation they need. I tried, and hated, litigating conflicts. I realized over time that I am a lawyer who provides counsel by preventing problems from happening in the first place, and I'm also someone who defends justice interests by resolving them through persuasion and discussion. I find if I can just get the other side to understand what is the right thing to do, and persuade them to do it, that we can avoid litigating, which is a win-lose proposition. I like being involved when both sides can agree and solve conflicts together. Win-win!First I was employed while attending law school by Brian Rohan, of Rohan and Stepanian. Then I left San Francisco and was hired by Universal Studios in the Legal Department of the Music Division. Then I went to Kant and Starr, a law firm in Santa Monica. Hal Kant, hired me and mentored me. All of these were jobs in music law.I began specializing in education law when I discovered that children with disabilities were not getting the kind of education they should be receiving. See What was the turning point in the lives of various Quora users, and how has it turned them into the person they are today? This I thought was beyond unfair. Here they were, chronically ill or with disabilities, and the schools were making it more difficult for them to learn; and, instead of allowing them access to their education, the schools were making it harder for such children and their families to overcome barriers to education.So all of this means that if you want to be a lawyer, think about and learn about the different kinds of law (tort; real property; intellectual property, constitutional law; wills, trusts and estates; transactions (contracts); corporate; tax; pro bono; litigation, etc.) but also at the same time think about what you want to be doing. Do you love paperwork and reading? Or do you prefer being among people and negotiating? Is it possible for you to write letters to different lawyers and ask to shadow each of them for a few hours? If not, how about going to court and just listening whenever you can? There are usually lawyers sitting in the audience waiting for their case(s) to be called by the clerk. You could ask someone during a recess if they could explain something you both just saw, and tell them you are a student considering a career as a lawyer. I would help out a student and many others would, too. Don't take 'no' personally. Some of them are not in a very good mood and it has nothing to do with your request.I don't want to be rambling. You asked a really good question.If you independently start reading case law now, you may get more of a taste for itAsk about whatever you don't understand and research the answer. We had a conversation tonight around the dinner table about The Rule Against Perpetuities, Fee Simple Absolute, and the other ways property can be held (life estate, leasehold, tenancy in common, joint tenancy, etc.). This is stuff I haven't thought about for many decades, since studying for the Bar Exam.How about going to a public university's law school and asking if you can audit a first year class lecture during the late summer when law school already began and your high school class is still enjoying summer vacation? Typically law schools begin earlier (early August) than high schools do (September...). If they say no, ask your parents to find you a responsible law student to take you to his or her classes for a day or so.I like the idea of reading American historyRead the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft because these books will give you some background into the theories of democracy and civil rights (for women)Read as much as you can about the equal rights amendment and the history of women in the USAfind all the biographies you can about the lives of great lawyers and judges (Carl Sandburg wrote a wonderful book about Lincoln)take debate courses in high school and collegeacclimate yourself to writing long papers with lots of research and footnotes formatted properlylearn to touch type so you improve your keyboarding speed so it is beyond fast; that way, you can write at the speed you think, a benefit no matter what you decide to do.

This should answer your question, and perhaps dispel some misunderstandings about what happens in the courts.I will write this answer as precisely as I am able. It must be read carefully to extract my meaning, but if you do you should understand what a trial is, what a lawyer’s role during trial is, and what a fact finder (judge or jury) ‘s role is.Clever rhetoric, at least by itself, should not and overwhelmingly does not determine which party wins or loses at trial. The following describes how a trial should work. Most fact-finders, but unfortunately not all, attempt with the best intentions to do their job during trial as well as can be done.Cases are won or lost based upon the facts which are placed (clearly presented through testimony and exhibits, sufficiently to convince the listener(s) of their likelihood/truth) before the the fact-finder(s) during the trial, so that they understand what has been proven.Lawyers win cases by deliberately attempting to place the facts required for their client to win, before the fact-finder(s), without any fatal gaps in the needed proof; or by convincing the fact-finder(s) that the other side’s proof (all the needed facts) was not placed before the fact-finder(s) during the trial.Cases are not ordinarily won or lost by lawyers merely using flowery words or secret tricks. Such outcomes would repeatedly result in injustice.Sometimes the fact-finder(s) conclude on their own from witnessing the presentation of facts that the needed proof was presented, and sometimes conclude it was not.Sometimes a lawyer’s argument during trial may invite a fact-finder to re-examine or remember the facts presented, then to make a reasonable analysis and conclude the case was proven or not proven. The facts presented, analyzed by the fact-finder(s), should result in the verdict.The most difficult cases, for any lawyer, are cases where a fact-finder, because of lack of patience, lack of attention, or distraction by irrelevancies (can include prejudices or favoritism for a party or lawyer), does not remember the evidence presented or decides the outcome before all evidence is presented. Outcomes in such cases will be unfairly arrived upon, and the verdict may be wrong. At such times the lawyer’s job in arguing is to overcome this by refreshing memories and reminding the fact-finder(s) what the facts were that justify a verdict for the lawyer’s client.When the clients cannot resolve the dispute or agree to an outcome before trial, a trial working as described above is the best way to decide the outcome of both criminal and civil (personal) cases.