SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

How Not To Argue

by Steven Novella, Feb 02 2009

Darwin once described The Origin of Species as one long argument. Much of science and skepticism, in fact, is the art and logic of arguing, and most of these blog posts on Skepticblog are just long written arguments.

How to argue logically is therefore one of the core intellectual skill-sets of scientific skepticism. It is why skeptics will frequently whip out their logical fallacy detectors when arguing with defenders of not-so-critical thinking or true-beliefs. Even in everyday conversations we commit and encounter countless errors in logic. It is therefore highly valuable to be familiar with the common ways in which human logic goes astray.

Also the internet has resulted in an explosion of human communication, especially, it seems, arguing. Much of the social constraints are lifted when typing over the intertubes under a pseudonym. Knowledge of good and bad arguing are therefore more essential than ever for the computer literati and wannabe internet flame warriors.

I recently was pointed to this website, which reprints an internet meme that has been going around for a while.  It presents 38 Ways To Win An Argument by Arthur Schopenhauer, and offers advice on how to intentionally use logical fallacies in order to flummox your opponent, deceive your audience, and thereby win arguments. The person who pointed me to that website, however, missed the fact that the advice is satirical – it is meant to expose these tactics, not recommend them.

Also, the author of this list is not really Arthur Schopenhaur, but is a modern adaptation of his writing. Arthur Schopenhaur was a German philosopher who lived from 1788-1860. He was a rationalist and logician. What he did write was a book called The Art of Controversy – here is a free 0nline English translation (another wonder of the internet).  In this book Schopenhaur does indeed review the tactics of deceitful and fallacious arguments, but he does not frame them as satirical advice. He is exposing them in a straightforward fashion, giving examples of each. The prose is also more typical of what we would expect from a 19th century philosopher.

In the first section Schopenhaur gives some background on the nature of logic and discourse. He writes:

Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed à priori. Dialectic, for the most part, can be constructed only à posteriori; that is to say, we may learn its rules by an experiential knowledge of the disturbance which pure thought suffers through the difference of individuality manifested in the intercourse between two rational beings, and also by acquaintance with the means which disputants adopt in order to make good against one another their own individual thought, and to show that it is pure and objective.

While logic is pure and based entirely on first principles, argument is partly a learned and quirky human endeavor.

The section titled Stratagems is the part that was adapted to the 38 Ways to Win an Argument. Here is the first translated directly from Schopenhaur:

The Extension.—This consists in carrying your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; in giving it as general a signification and as wide a sense as possible, so as to exaggerate it; and, on the other hand, in giving your own proposition as restricted a sense and as narrow limits as you can, because the more general a statement becomes, the more numerous are the objections to which it is open. The defence consists in an accurate statement of the point or essential question at issue.

He then follows with specific examples. And here is the modern adaptation:

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

I do not know who originally wrote the adaption, as every reference I could find credits Schopenhaur for writing it (if someone finds a reference let me know). I therefore assume this is open-access internet content, and for convenience reproduce the entire list below.

It is worth a read, as is Schopenhaur’s much longer original. It is time worth dedicating to perfecting skills in logic and discourse, especially in this age of internet skepticism.


38 Ways To Win An Argument
Adapted from The Art of Controversy by Arthur Schopenhauer

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent’s statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, “You do not understand the mysteries of Kant’s philosophy.”
Person B replies, “Oh, if it’s mysteries you’re talking about, I’ll have nothing to do with them.”

3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.

4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

5 Use your opponent’s beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.

6 Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.
Example: Call something by a different name: “good repute” instead of “honor,” “virtue” instead of “virginity,” “red-blooded” instead of “vertebrates”.

7 State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.
By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted.
Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent’s admissions.

8 Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

9 Use your opponent’s answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

10 If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises.
This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.

11 If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion.
Later, introduce your conclusions as a settled and admitted fact.
Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

12 If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.
Example: What an impartial person would call “public worship” or a “system of religion” is described by an adherent as “piety” or “godliness” and by an opponent as “bigotry” or “superstition.”
In other words, insert what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.

13 To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well.
If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must to everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, “whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents.”
Or , if a thing is said to occur “often” you are to understand few or many times, the opponent will say “many.”
It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white; or gray next to white and call it black.

14 Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your question without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow.
If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

15 If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.
Instead, submit for your opponent’s acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it.
Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition.
Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment.
You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted.
For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.

16 When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?”
Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, “Why don’t you leave on the first plane?”

17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.
Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea.

18 If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion.
Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

19 Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.
Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.

20 If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion.
Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

21 When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character.
But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him.
For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.
Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice, emotion or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.

22 If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

23 Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements.
By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit.
When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement.
Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than your intended, redefine your statement’s limits and say, “That is what I said, no more.”

24 State a false syllogism.
Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd.
It then appears that opponent’s proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.
Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent’s proposition.
Example: “All ruminants are horned,” is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.

26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares: “so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.”
You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.”

27 Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.
No only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

28 When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

29 If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion–that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute.
This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

30 Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.
If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case.
If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance.
Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most.
You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.

31 If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
Example: “What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can’t understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it.”
In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense.
This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, “That is fascism” or “Atheism” or “Superstition.”
In making an objection of this kind you take for granted
1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited;
2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.

33 You admit your opponent’s premises but deny the conclusion.
Example: “That’s all very well in theory, but it won’t work in practice.”

34 When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so.
You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence.
You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.
If you success in making your opponent’s opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.
Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma.
You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church.
He will abandon the argument.

36 You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast.
If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what your are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

37 Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.
This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases.
If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day.

38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

35 Responses to “How Not To Argue”

  1. AndyN says:

    Fascinating post.

    Steven, have you considered learning how to employ these tactics as a secret “smart bomb” to throw at woo mongers occasionally? Just for kicks. I know it’s a morally and intellectually repugnant thing to do, but it’d sure be fun.

    It’d be funny as hell to hear you doing that on the SGU :)

  2. Mastriani says:

    Fantastic article, well done.

    Logical arguments on the internet are also a double edged sword, learned from my own experience, and often failures. Although this medium has the capability for exacting and precise semantic claims, that is also often its downfall.

    Due to the fact that we are trained from the earliest ages to understand communication as much, or some might argue more, from expression, body language, and auditory inflection; miscommunication is highly likely. Often times, leaving two debating individuals to “talk past” one another; or more directly, debating towards like conclusion and arguing simple semantics, unknowingly.

    I’ve personally had the pleasure of being philosophically dismissed or dispossessed of claims by far superior minds. The learning process of logic, (especially the precision with which claims are presented, supported and/or refuted), is wholly amazing. It is often also arduous and taxing.

    As a primary component of critical thinking and scientific methodology, it should be a life’s study, regardless one’s profession.

  3. Randy Peptish says:

    So is the purpose of an argument to win, or is it to establish a truth? Because the first one is fucking childish, and the second one actually serves a worthwhile purpose.

  4. Mastriani says:

    Truth is perpetual subjectivity, and often, equivocation through relativism. Facts are either falsifiable or verifiable.

    Some would prefer adjusting perspectives through facts.

  5. As I state in my related article that I link to, How to Argue, the purpose of an argument should be to find the truth, which begins by finding common ground. What Schopenhaur was writing about was when your opponent is trying to win at all costs, and the logical fallacies, deceptions, and misdirections they will employ to win even when they are wrong. The purpose is to recognize them when you encounter them so you can point them out and hopefully defuse them, and also to avoid these shady logical tactics yourself.

  6. Schopenhaur’s Baloney Detection Kit?

    Mastriani: “Due to the fact that we are trained from the earliest ages to understand communication as much, or some might argue more, from expression, body language, and auditory inflection; miscommunication is highly likely.”

    Excellent point. So many internet discussions and debates devolve into flame wars because of simple miscommunications, due to the limitations of the written (typed) word and our respective writing skills or lack thereof. It once took me ten posts to extricate myself from the response to one sentence, written as sarcasm but taken as agreement and support for the opposition who mistook it.

    While I love a spirited debate and truly feel I cannot lose if I learn something, I do restrict myself to the more concrete topics of demonstrable fact. So many internet discussions and debates are essentially between two encamped mindsets arguing over something akin to which is the best color or who was the best rock and roll guitarist, topics where beauty is in the eye of the beholder, entirely subjective, and defies debate.

    Blue. Duane Allman.

  7. Mastriani says:

    No offense Mr. Novella, (wait is it Mr. or Dr.? No offense intended on the ignorance), but logical argumentation is not concerned with “truth”.

    To wit:
    The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines logic as “the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference.” Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not.

    Even when a truth claim is dismissed as being invalid/incorrect, the owner of said claim does not have to be moved from their position; “It is still the truth to me”. The primary issue being, truth is a private event and hardly debatable in any useful manner.

  8. Max says:

    Let’s start with what it means to “win an argument”. Persuading your opponent is very different from persuading the audience.

    This website covers everything

  9. MadScientist says:

    Hmm … this reads like a handbook for politicians. In Australia, the news reports only ever show politicians “stating their facts” this way. I never did understand how the locals could watch/listen to such patent nonsense; when I see such displays of stupidity I can only assume that politicians are imbeciles (and that the people who voted for them even the more foolish). When I was new to Australia I spoke to people on the university campus to see if anyone actually bought the political “arguments” – I was horrified to learn that (in general) they just lap it up. Since university students seem to be so unpracticed at thinking, I assumed (correctly) that the general public must be much worse.

  10. tmac57 says:

    Mastriani:”truth is a private event and hardly debatable in any useful manner.”
    One definition of truth by Merriam Webster is: “the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality”. So if we were to substitute “facts” for “truth” in your sentence above it would seem to be the equivalent of people being entitled to their own facts.
    Are you asserting that, or were you in mind of a different sense of “truth” in your statement?

  11. Max says:

    Sounds to me like Mastriani confused “belief” with “truth”. Belief is what’s private.

  12. Mastriani says:

    Granted tmac57, that standardised versions of the terms “fact” and “truth” do not vary until you move down the list of accepted definitions.

    In semantics there is also the usage, and how this overrides the standardisation of terms. Facts held as a private event, and proven to be false by means of other facts/greater body of facts, are in error.

    Truth, is subjective, and does not depend upon objective facts. Truth is a judgment, a private event.

    Yes Max, “belief” and “truth” are most often more linguistically relevant to one another than “fact” and “truth”.

    Does one need to “believe” in facts, or in truths?

  13. Julian says:

    “Often times, leaving two debating individuals to “talk past” one another; or more directly, debating towards like conclusion and arguing simple semantics, unknowingly.”

    Looks like Mastriani got this much spot on. ^_^

  14. João Pedro Caetano says:

    So, basically to read this in the intended manner would be to simply add in your mind “Do not” in the right places. Correct?
    By doing this in your mind, you hone your own thinking discipline.

    I like doing this in reverse, to fire safety pamflets and other cautionary texts and messages, imagining the contrary of what they advise.
    I often giggle alone.
    A lot of dark humour ensues in my head.

  15. Tor Hershman says:

    Here are the awful facts about Hey Zeus.

    NOTE: This (re)discovery is what elevated moi to #1 on the
    Must Aviod At All Costs list.

  16. Sometimes it’s better to just walk away and let them argue with themselves.

  17. lazykayak says:

    As a physician, learning about logical fallacies has improved my thinking and at times caused me to question my (often anecdotal) beliefs. That is far more valuable than using them to point out someone’s ill conceived arguements in a snarky fashion.

  18. I think the most important logical fallacy we need to keep in mind is the ‘fallacist’s fallacy’. This holds that just because a given premise is supported all or in part by logical fallacy, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. The premise could still be correct, but isn’t proved by the fallacious reasoning offered.

  19. Max says:

    Another important fallacy is to assert that arguments resembling informal fallacies like “appeal to authority”, “appeal to consequences”, and “slippery slope” are necessarily fallacious.

  20. tmac57 says:

    Max, could you elaborate on your comment 18 a bit? What is an example of a an argument that would resemble an informal fallacy?

  21. The Blind Watchmaker says:


    “Formal” arguments refer to arguments of form.
    eg. If A, then B
    A is present.
    Therefore, B.

    This is an argument that follows logical form.

    A “formal” logic error would be something like,
    If A, then B.
    B is present.
    Therefore, A. This would be a non-sequitor.

    “Informal” refers to arguments outside of “form”, like “appeal to authority”.

  22. Max says:

    Some examples.
    1. Appeal to authority: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added alcoholic beverages to the list of known carcinogens, so the claim that alcohol causes cancer has passed their criteria.
    2. Appeal to consequences: If you drink and drive you might get in a car accident. Therefore you should not drink and drive.
    3. Slippery slope: From Steven Novella’s post, “I noted that the current strategy of the intelligent design (ID)/creationism movement is to push for academic freedom. They don’t really care about academic freedom, they just want to erode academic quality standards so as create a back door through which they can squeeze their religious beliefs into science classrooms.”
    4. Hasty generalization: Every Young Earth Creationist I’ve talked to has a poor understanding of the theory of evolution.

    It would be a fallacy to dismiss these arguments as fallacious.

  23. Max says:

    5. Post hoc: Eating beans gives me gas.

  24. DangerMouse says:

    Closely related to 32, 34, and 38:

    Invoke Godwin’s law.

  25. Max says:

    Appeal to authority + appeal to fear from Phil Plait:
    “Save your kids’ lives. Take them to a doctor and get his or her advice on this. And if they recommend vaccinations, then do it.”

  26. TSK says:

    > Arthur Schopenhaur was a German philosopher who lived from
    > 1788-1860. He was a rationalist and logician.

    Not really. His philosophy was strongly based on Eastern religions
    and his main thesis was voluntarism -> the world is *not* based on
    the interaction of natural laws, but the result of an all-existent blind will.

    > What he did write was a book called The Art of Controversy – here
    > is a free 0nline English translation (another wonder of the
    > internet). In this book Schopenhaur does indeed review the tactics
    > of deceitful and fallacious arguments, but he does not frame them
    > as satirical advice. [...]
    > The purpose is to recognize them when you encounter them so you
    > can point them out and hopefully defuse them, and also to avoid
    > these shady logical tactics yourself.

    The book was dated back to the years 1830/31, but Schopenhauer never
    published it; it was found in the estate after his death in 1860.
    If he intended to enlighten, why did he never publish it ?
    Given the background information that Schopenhauer was cantankerous and misanthropic, it is safe to assume that Schopenhauer did not intend to “avoid” this tactics, he used them *himself*.

  27. tmac57 says:

    Thanks for your above examples. I instinctively got what you were talking about but couldn’t think of one off the top of my head.

  28. TaoMacGuy says:

    Wow. I’m reading this little ditty and thinking, this could have been written by Stephen Colbert! These tactics describe his on-air persona on “The Colbert Report” to a T!


  29. badrescher says:

    The goal of an arguer may not be truth, but the purpose of an argument actually is.
    Belief does not equal truth, as Max said, and truth is not private. Truth is neither subjective nor is it “fact(s)”.
    Facts are either falsifiable or verifiable, but facts are merely common beliefs that are deemed highly likely to be true.
    Truth can never be known with 100% certainty. We SEEK truth. We settle for reasonable certainty of what is true.

  30. Max says:

    For something to truly be “common knowledge”, not only must you and I know it, but also I must know that you know it, and you know that I know it, and I know that you know that I know it, and so on.

  31. chickenfish says:

    I suggest common knowledge is exactly as Max describes but as is with most things different people have different ideas about what a word or phrase may mean or how it is to be used. Perhaps presumed knowledge would better describe what most would think of as common knowledge.

    Presumed knowledge is knowledge that people are presumed to know unless they state otherwise. At least this is my legal position.

  32. Xplodyncow says:

    I don’t know who wrote the adaptation to Schopenhaur’s original, but the list sounds an awful lot like the approach Capaldi and Smit take in their critical-thinking exercises in the book The Art of Deception.

  33. Joel says:

    Is there an RSS feed I can sign up to to get updates?

  34. Julianne says:

    Great post, thanks for the info

  35. Aaron says:

    Hello to everyone that has posted a blog or two on these many different ways to win an argument. I’m a football at Miles College, here in Alabama and I have a debate/argument so to say, to do with others in my speech class about why we should not track sex offenders. Now this is for a grade and I really need to pass, so I thought reading thses procedures and blogs, would enhance my knowledge and further my understanding, so I can ultimately win this discussion. I have read everything on this page, therefore I wanted to ask everyone, who clearly seems to understand all of this with great intellect. So, with that said, “How can I win this argument, against a group that is trying to say that sex offenders should be tracked?”
    I do not know what they are coming with, to try and persuade the audience, but what my group and I are coming with is that,
    1. They don’t keep track on murderers when they leave prison or equivalent.
    2. They don’t keep tabs on rapist, in which they rape people of their age group.
    Ex. A 50 yr old rapes a 43 yr old, he is not considered a sex offender, is he?
    3. Yes we can track them, but we don’t know what they are doing, it’s not like we can put a camera inside their living quarters, that’s an invasion of privacy.
    4. How much of “OUR” taxes are being paid to keep track of these particular individuals, then if we can maybe show our audience some figures that represent how much of their money is being taken annually from their paychecks to support people behind bars, and kepping track of these individuals. Yes we can by tracking them, keep them from living in school related areas, but just because we are tracking them does not mean, we keep the ones that are traveling up to schools, away from schools. Yes you can track where they are in reference to their living quarters, but ultimately not what they do so, would you like to keep spending money, x amount to track these people, when we still cannot control what they do.
    5. Then how many people are wrongfully accused, because they have no adequate lawyer to back their case, and now what that hinders individuals to do because of their falsified accusation, of the given proposition.
    I know it’s not a lot, but it’s all we’ve got so far.

    -15 minute dicussion proving our side
    -10 minute question answering segment
    and then our opposition goes for the same time limit.

    If any advice, on how we can attck this “case” will be greatly appreciated! Please post or email me at