How to Argue Like a Lawyer (and WIN) with 4-Step Formula
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- Lawyers are known for their ability to ARGUE, but did you know that we're just following a simple formula? #ProSe #Court
A lot of people argue, but not a lot of people know how to argue. There is a 4-step formula that lawyers are taught in Law School when it comes to winning arguments.
Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
00:19 - What is the 4-Step formula?
01:16 - How to argue using the 4-Step formula
02:37 - How to argue with your Boss
03:38 - How to argue in Court
05:16 - How to argue with "quarreling"
Also find our content on:
Facebook.com/MatthewHarrisLaw
Instagram - @Matthew_Harris_Law
Google Maps - g.page/MatthewHarrisLaw
Website - matthewharrislaw.com/
I’m going to teach you this 4-step formula so you know how to argue like a lawyer. Then, I’m going to show you how this formula wins arguments at your job, and in Court, so you’ll never lose an argument again.
What is the 4-Step formula?
Lawyers use CRAC. Not Crack, but CRAC. (stupid joke, but hopefully it makes you remember)
CRAC is the 4-step Formula taught to law students, and you’re going to learn this $80K formula today for FREE. Also, you don’t have to spend 7 years in school!
CRAC stands for:
1. Conclusion
2. Rule
3. Analysis
4. Conclusion.
Let’s apply this in a really simple scenario.
Conclusion
This color is Green.
Rule
When primary colors (Red, Yellow, or Blue) are mixed together, they create a new color. Mixing equal parts Yellow and Blue creates Green.
Analysis
Green isn’t a primary color, which means that it must have been created by mixing primary colors. I mixed the two primary colors of Yellow and Blue which created this color.
Conclusion
Therefore, because the rule states that mixing primary colors Yellow and Blue creates Green, and those were the colors that I mixed, then this color must be Green.
How to argue using the 4-Step formula
This formula can be applied to nearly any scenario. In fact, I bet you’re already using some parts of this formula in your arguments without even realizing it!
The key here is for you to be a little more focused in your delivery.
Conclusion: Begin by stating your conclusion. What is the disagreement at hand, and what is your position on it? Be clear and concise in your statement of the conclusion and try to boil it down to the simplest terms.
Rule: Next, state the rule that applies to the disagreement. This could be a statute, a regulation, legal precedent, your company’s policy manual, or even your Homeowners Association’s bylaws. Be sure to state the rule accurately and completely.
Analysis: Now it is time to analyze how the rule applies to the facts of your situation. This is where you will make your argument. Explain how the rule supports your position, and use evidence from your specific case to support your argument. Anticipate counterarguments and address them in your analysis.
Conclusion: Finally, restate your conclusion and summarize your argument. Be sure to emphasize why your analysis supports your conclusion and why it is the correct interpretation of the law, rule, or bylaw.
Most people don’t know how to argue so they make the mistake of debating their analysis first, before establishing the conclusion and the rule. Beginning with your conclusion and the rule gives you ammunition to use in your analysis so you can drive your point home in the final conclusion with authority.
How to argue with your Boss
You walk into work 5 minutes after your shift started, and your boss storms in yelling about you being late and threatening to fire you. It’s true, your company’s policy allows termination of employees for being late.
However, your company’s policy manual states that an employee is “late” if the employee arrives 10 minutes later than their shift begins.
I know what you’re thinking: that’s an EASY argument! Your first instinct is to just say, “No I’m not!” but that just opens the discussion for debate and argument. That’s not how to argue if you want to win.
Use the CRAC!
C: Boss, I’m actually not late today.
R: The company policy manual states that employees are late if the employee arrives 10 minutes or later after the beginning of the shift.
A: I arrived to my shift within 5 minutes of it beginning, and not 10 minutes or more after it began.
C: Respectfully, because I’m not considered “late” according to company policy, then there’s no reason to threaten me with termination.
Do you see how clear, concise, and persuasive that is? I’m willing to bet that your Boss doesn’t know how to argue, so they will be stunned when faced with your bullet-proof argument.
How to argue in Court
If you want to know how to argue in Court, this is where things get really interesting. Here’s where learning how to argue is like learning a secret language.
When you learn how to argue by using this 4-step formula ...Keep Reading - matthewharrislaw.com/how-to-a...
Music:
Homebound - Anno Domini Beats
Music provided via TH-cam Studio Audio Library
*“...don’t ever wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it!”*
Love it! ...great delivery.
😁 Thank you!
I hope you credited Amway Diamond Direct Distributor Dave Severn since that quote was from his 1970s speech titled "Pigs Don't Know Pigs Stink". It's on TH-cam and is a good listen. 90% has nothing to do with Amway and that doesn't come until the end. th-cam.com/video/Xa4wMMOI7YY/w-d-xo.html
(Just don't join Amway)
It is a very catchy statement but there is a reason to dislike it.
This mindset undermines primary responsibility to, at any given time, do everything required to achieve the outcomes you seek. Not willing to wrestle a pig to avoid getting dirty (using same metaphor) is a cowardly and limiting mindset.
Decide if wrestling the pig will get you forward and if needed wrestle as many as needed. Don’t be held back by fear mentality
Never let a pigs' enjoyment be the reason you refuse to wrestle with it.
@@Slava-om1sz As the owner of a 175 pound pet pig, I can assure you that wrestling with a pig is not something you want to do. LOL. Seriously though, the point is that it's not about fear or being limited, it is about understanding what a challenge it is and finding a way to get the pig to do what you want voluntarily by offering it something it values... peanut butter has high value for a pig :D
1. Jab
2. Cross
3. Hook
4. Upper cut
End of conversation
And I retort with a c-c-c-combo breaker! 😆
You forgot a few things. Handcuffs, jail time, court date ,possible further jail time and law suite.
No Fuck? awww.
closing testimony with the victims = finishing move
mortal kombat voice: fatality
SO FUNNY. 😂😂😂😂😂
This will never work against my wife
"Lawyers use CRAC" 😂LOL.. I hired one who did, found out about his habit after he actually won my case.
🤣 Hey, at least he was highly motivated!
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC LOL 😂 .. indeed
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC 😆🤣
Well... he didn't get caught, you must acquit ! 😊
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
I find the bulletproof way to win any argument is to argue only about things that you honestly know are true.
Well said!
I tried that. I was so upset about my director lying on me and the Head Doctor and head person of HR let the write up stick. I honestly believe they knew I was telling the truth but they looked out for the themselves/ mgmt first. In the end I later was asked an survey everyone gets and what I put basically got her booted out her job. She didn't get fired because she's friend with someone in HR so the lady got her a job in a different department. The lady that got her another job don't know that she been getting employees to quit and come work at a 2nd place where she is. Even though I've moved also to another department it still bothers me I had a write ✍️ up because I've never been a bad employee. I wish I had watched videos like this before.
well yeah. Theres a reason laywers dont take on cases they know they'll lose
True unfortunately there are no truths only interpretations - nietsche
WRONG ! You can be telling the truth yet you cannot prove it.
I'm not being facetious, I like to use logic. It's amazing how often people don't use logic when arguing. I just try to spot a fallacy in an opposing view then I expose it. That's how I win arguments. Furthermore, I offer a logical argument with no fallacy. If they're too far gone I'll out-fallacy them, for lack of a better phrase.
Totally agree. Don’t try to defend yourself. Attacking their argument and make them prove themself
People argue because they are hiding something.
@@ThePro-Se Or because they disagree with someone.
I was taught: IRAC, Issue, rule, analysis, conclusion
Same. I just figured creative license was taken here to make it more relatable for the TH-cam audience.
Why over complicate it? Just use normal syllogism. Premise1, Premise2, Conclusion. In order for the counter argument to be valid, they have to refute the premises. If they can’t then just keep redirecting them to refute the premises. Simple.
At Trump University, I was taught DDDAR: delay, discount, deflect, appeal, repeat (and I got that extra step for free).
@@stevesorenson892 Thank you Steve that was interesting. i didn't understand what Charles was talking about - now i do. Some people make a hell of a mess when it comes to teaching.
@@stevesorenson892 👍
I was taught IRAC in law school. Issue. Rule. Analysis. Conclusion. You never start with a conclusion, at least not when arguing in writing. We went to different law schools.
You don't use the CRAC method even in Trial Briefs? IRAC isn't very effective in litigation (in my experience) because it is more of a scholarly discussion rather than persuasive writing.
This is the reason there is no write or wrong in law. just persuations. Or else why would the SCOTUS be even listening to Trumps Absolute Immunity case?
Yeah, Agreed because IRAC gives us a clearer heading in terms of what you are trying to argue. It is interesting to know a different method. @@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC
What does 'issue' mean? ... Example using the same 'green' color or other easy example.
@@Skylightatdusk basically what’s your problem, complaint or point?
Issue:: point or matter of discussion, debate, or dispute.
im not losing to a kid now
Go get 'em Tiger!
😂😂 😆
Matthew , congratulations on the fact that you have taught us how to be civil, logical, reasonable, rational and coverse intelligently . Thank you very much .
Thank you! It is an honor and a privilege to educate. 😁
He used Aristotels logic in argumanation about colors.
One additional rule I follow is give your opponent a way to 'save face'. Don't corner him so deeply that he will come out as a jerk, back off at the last moment and let him keep some dignity. That solves a lot of problems.
Example: "I understand your anger at my being late. Technically I was not but I will try to avoid this in future"
Bravo!! 😁
My mother was not a lawyer, but she taught me this rule
Best to find out why your boss accuse you to respond appropriately next time because it will not be the only time.
As a former law student-mind you law student, I say arguing like a lawyer outside the law court shall end up with serious business - trading blows in a free for all
In my earlier life as an analyst, I instinctually used this -- or a similar -- method for writing reports. The headline of the report was the conclusion. The first paragraph repeated the conclusion, then the rest of the report body offered the specific facts leading to that conclusion. I used roughly the same method when teaching, calling it the "Tell 'em, tell 'em, tell 'em" method. I taught my children to write their essays the same way. Conclusion, then facts.
To flesh out the "tell 'em, tell 'em, tell 'em" method, introduce the lesson by saying what you'll cover in the lesson. Give the lesson in detail, then give a summary of the lesson. Tell 'em in the intro, tell 'em again in the lesson, tell 'em again in the summary.
Also, let's stop reading all these TH-cam comments, Counselor. You have an argument to work on. 😄
😄 Tis true. I have to go work on my own argument. I did want to first say that your comment was the exact lesson taught in Airman Leadership School.
"1) Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em
2) Tell 'em
3) Tell 'em what you told 'em"
Well done!
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC Well, to be fair I learned it in the Navy. At least there's one thing the Navy and the Air Force agree on; there aren't many others.
@@arinerm1331 Hey, I was actually stationed on a Navy base for 3 years! Port Hueneme, CA from 2005-2008.
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC I can hardly imagine a more unlikely combination of military personnel than SeaBees and an Air Force member.
How to mess with a lawyer.....when you are on stand, continually ask them to repeat every question that they ask. Every time ask, " Could you repeat that question?" works especially well when they have to ask the court reporter to continually read back the last question. Just keep a straight face and chuckle inside. Works well with video depositions too.
I appreciate your humor, but that's not great advice. The judicial system deserves more respect, not less, and this could lead somebody being found in contempt or as hostile.
@@thedarkestowl4224 It is not humor. It is a tactic. The "system" does not deserve respect. Lawyers by trade are deceitful and practice the art of trickery. If a lawyer doesn't respect his own profession, nobody else should treat it respectfully.
@@thedarkestowl4224 The judicial system is a joke. A game played by two professionals using the client as the ball. Lawyers will do everything to chase a plaintiff/defendant from the table by driving up the cost of seeking justice, and often, a "best offer" is made outside of the courthouse.
@@99Michael Cool pfp Michael!
Since the lawyer asking the question is just one person it would be "continually ask him to repeat the question." This using of the plural for a singular is a fad that has to go.
Thank for you lesson
I've had to give myself a crash course in UK law, especially in family law, trying to stay in my child's life.
I'm American so this makes things even more challenging because their system and culture are different.
I am a Litigant-In-Person arguing my cases against the ex to the judge in England.
I've won some cases and lost some too, some pretty hard. This has been going on since 2019 and I'm getting a bit experienced but still have so much to learn.
I can't afford law school nor is there enough time for me to apply it towards my case. My child's welfare is on the line.
I just submitted my 110 page Bundle with all of the orders, statements, evidence, etc and have the Solicitor's (paperwork) part of the job done.
Now it's time to be the Barrister (argues to the judge).
This information is invaluable to me and someday my child will learn this from me
🙏🙏🙏
@DavidBaronStevens check out "how to win in court" course by dr graves.
@@paultaylor9585 thank you, I will!!! 👊
you should not have to ague the value of a father as the woman does not have to argue the value of the mother - that's discriminatory!
Argument demystified. Thanks for your generosity.
Concise and articulate. Thank you!
Wow, this is one of the most helpful videos I have ever seen on TH-cam. Real glad this came up on my feed
Thnkyou for posting this video. Loved the outline and the explination of the difference between arguing and quaraling.
You are so welcome! I'm always so happy when people get value from the work we put in. 😁
Thank you. I need to work on this. Good life skill.
Thank you Matthew.
Thank you sir, sounds like good advice for life not just court:)
Matthew, you are !correct.
Another excellent video! Thank you so much, Matthew!! 🤗
Thank you! ♥ (sorry, sometimes comments get lost in the shuffle)
Taking Notes Professor. You Lawyers are sooooo Slick!
Spectacular video presentation. High quality production. Would love more Pro-Se content.
I always wanted to be a lawyer. This CRAC is indeed something that judges recognize and puts them at ease that you're being truthful.
I helped some people present their cases in court, but some people just ruin themselves and lose the case just for being blunt and unprofessional.
Thanks for sharing this video.
I've always used this method Matthew. I just never knew the formula! Thanks!
Look at how naturally smart you are! I'm not surprised. 😉
Very good insight. I love arguing for arguing sake but not for nonsense only for the beauty of sounds, words and subject. Theatrical... LOL.
Thank you so much. It's so helpful.
This is good, thanks, will develop more on this
Thank you Matthew. 👍
It really helps. thank you!
This was serendipitous.
I've learned a new TH-cam feature thanks to commenting on your video.
It's nice.
I like this as it's a knife likely in everyone's kitchen that should be sharpened. As with any knife that is appropriately sharpened, applied to the appropriate recipe, it will cut through the BS very effectively and feel natural and comfortable. Other situations may not feel the same way. You wouldn't use a pearing knife to cut meat and potatoes (unless it's your only knife), so learn to sharpen the knife and place in the right place to be used effectively at the right time for the right recipe.
Reminds me of some older distinguished Italian guys start out with stating a shortened issue/result then go from there and swing back. Like you responded to below (f) irac is the usual objective and persuasive memoranda taught.
I even shout when things are not in my favor in tje court. Now i learned so much from thid video
I love your template Atty.😊
Conclusion
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion
I will definitely try this.😊
This has been very helpful. I'm a student studying citizenship for my GCSEs and I have mock trials this month. As you may have guessed my role is a defence lawyer and I am currently studying for my role. Though I don't plan to take up law at the moment, this is still very interesting and I already have a good number of notes from only half an hour.
I'll return with the results of the mock trials if I remember. My class will go up against up to three schools to my knowledge, so I'm looking forward to how well my studying will pay off!
Attorney Harris AMAZING 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Hi, thankyou for uploading this episode, going through family law case at the moment, need to hear this today, appreciate it, thankyou, respect, J
No, thank YOU for watching. Good luck on your case. Did you happen to see our video on How Dad's Win Custody? th-cam.com/video/keawfzYsMDs/w-d-xo.html
It's a nice way to argue ....thanks for the tips
Thank you so much. This came at exactly the right moment for me and is exactly what I need to conduct my grievance with my employer. Subscribed.
You're so welcome! Thank you for the sub, and good luck with your grievance!
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but I did NOT have a phone and my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
Very good, thanks!
lol great video. “Use the C.R.A.C.!” Loved it.
Thank you! I definitely had way too much fun filming this one. lol
Very helpful.
Excellent!! Thank you
Great video. Thank you, Matthew!
It is my honor and privilege to educate! Now get out there and start an argument! 😁
Thank you Sir , for the fruitful guidelines
Thank you! It is an honor and a privilege to educate. 😁
Matthew nice vid. I wish you health and all kind of wealth.
Thank you! I wish the same upon you. ♥
Never thought of it this way….pretty cool. I’ve always looked at Propositional/ formal logic as the gold source style of forming arguments. This is definitely a form of that but unlike the branded component to it. Easy to remember
I just love him! 🙌
Awesome content..thank you. And God bless you
Thank you
Great info. Thank you
You're very welcome!
I'm going to tell coaches i know to watch this. Some umpires are ridiculous and maybe this is a better way to approach the difficult ones. Thank you for posting this!!
Genius! If I'd considered umpires and coaches, I would have included them as an example. Great thinking!
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
Thank you . By the way, I did not even have a phone.
Interesting. These are the elements of every research paper i.e. abstract, background, method, analysis, conclusions.
You missed the most important parts: THE TITLE, AUTHORS, RESULTS & REFERENCES. NOne reads the background, analysis or conclusions.
The cheap shits which are authorities make everything in the background a mess, they hide the abuses they make and how they waste peoples life leading them to nowwhere, they hang like imbecils on some connections that are not relevant for present time but the imbecils still comment about some "World War 2" when in fact they dont see the garbaje underneath their eyes, the garbage that they make. Instead to solve a real problem they keep bullshiting about other problems. They are commenting about education times when they delay that. They make only criminal acts and they dont realize how ridiculous jerks they are, the fact that they have no logic and the fact that they create nothing good. They step on human rights so in the end they want to be heros. They dont realize that are transparent stupids ?
Interesting video. Thank you from Canada
Thank you! Where at in Canada?
Crushed the like and subscribe buttons! EXCELLENT video and thank you so much for sharing!
Thanks for the sub! I'll do my best to earn your subscription with every video.
Sir..... Simply superb..... Short brief sweet..... 👑⛑👒🎩Hat's off..... God bless you🙏
So nice of you. Thank you, and may God bless you as well. 😊
Awesome job Matthew
Thank you Judge Parrot!
Going to do the C.R.A.C every day now. Thanks!
Your father will be President in no time! 😆😆😆
So happy to be here
Not nearly as happy as I am to HAVE you here!
I have watched this three times so I can remember it. Thanks
If you can remember the CRAC formula, and master our 11 tips on How to Negotiate With a Narcissist, you'll be unstoppable! th-cam.com/video/mmU95swX4Qc/w-d-xo.html
Thanks. This will help me troll with more elan. Crass comments are intended to make people bristle with antagonism. By using this four step process, now I can fire off one four-head ballistic comment in one attack. Your explanation of when an argument has been won is just as important as how to effectively argue. Thanks again.
Vell done comrade !! ✌
Great video! I love ‘CRAC’! 😊
🤣
Splendid I loved it❤
Great advice! Glad your video showed up in my feed. Now I'm gonna go open my own law firm! Seriously though is very helpful. Thanks!
Thank you! It is an honor and a privilege to educate. 😁
Hello, gentlemen. How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but I did NOT have a phone and my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ?
@@user-bz6oz6gt6q If it is the officer's testimony that he saw the phone in your hand, but it is your testimony that you did not have the phone in your hand, then it will be his word against yours and the judge/jury will have to decide who to believe.
If the video doesn't show definitively that you did not have the phone in your hand, then it is neutral evidence.
Unfortunately, your facts may not be winnable through argument alone. I once had to take a similar case to a jury trial where the officer was saying one thing and my client was saying another.
During jury selection, I asked if the jury would give equal weight to what my client was saying as the officer's testimony, or would they lean in favor of the officer. Most said they would favor the officer, so we ultimately busted the panel because there weren't enough unbiased jurors.
The DA decided to dismiss the charges at that point. 😁
Great video!
Great points! Thank you! ❤
You are so welcome! Check back in and let us know the first time you win an argument using this formula. 😁
Im getting ready to argue in court. I been watching Rock, A Few Good Men, episodes of Matlock. Im really gwtting ready💪💪
Love it. Very good. I am sold. I'll let you know how it goes.
This is basically deductive argumentation from argumentation forms in Western Analytical Philosophy. Deductive argument establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true.
No... Not quite. Not when you BEGIN with a conclusion. That is a violation of syllogistic logic, and therefore INVALID argumentation.
The Master (Lawyer in French) was intentional when he said he was going to give us $80,000 worth of knowledge for FREE. This was spot on! I wish I watched this about 7 years ago, but I know it now!!! 💪🏾⚖️📖
New subscriber always watching your videos very interesting and helpful❤❤❤
Yay! Thank you! I'll do my best to earn your subscription with every video.
thank you Sir
important formula in argument is honesty before i apply the acronyms CRACS...thanks pretty helpful in minor aguments❤❤❤
GR8 advice 😎🐈
Very informative and useful.
My Boi be spitting knowledge so so stay focused brothers.
Please excuse the slang and thank you for this informative video please continue to release more videos and thank you.
wow! excellent
thanks for super content, cheers.
Thank you! It is an honor and a privilege to educate. 😁
Excellent
0:22 😂😂😂😂 The best part!😂😂😂😂
Great teaching
Thank you! It is an honor and a privilege to educate. 😁
Nice tips👍👍
Love it 😊
Actually some very good common sense and thought provoking advice 😊.
Why THANK YOU very much! I sincerely appreciate your kind words. 😊
Brilliant
Thank you, as always. xoxoxox
thanks you 🎉🎉🎉😊
This video is awesome!!!
No no. YOU'RE awesome! 🤩
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC love ya, mean it--Texan, fellow addict and 13th juror!!! 😎👍
This is absolutely excellent. I am a retired lawyer here in the UK but of course argument is the same the world over. I have never before heard of this formula but it is gold dust and also common sense. I am presently conducting an appeal against a decision of the local health board on behalf of a close relative, and find that many of the arguments I have constructed are broadly, but subconsciously, along the lines you are suggesting. However, I shall now go back to the 50 pages or so of the appeal and refashion some of the arguments contained in it using CRAC.. Thank you.
Thank you! It is an honor to be validated by such an esteemed colleague. I'm sure you learned the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) method in law school, but they're now emphasizing the CRAC method as being more persuasive.
Good luck on your appeal to the health board!
How do I use my C.R.A.C. here ? Police officer claimed I was texting & driving. His car cam 📷 captured the scene of me driving by, but my hands ✋️ were unable to be seen... Is his vision better than the camera ? I did not even have a phone. Thank you.
@@user-bz6oz6gt6q I am not sure if your question is directed at me or Matthew and whether you are in the UK or the U.S. or elsewhere and also what stage of the process you are at. Your best defence is of course that you did not have a phone which is part of the analysis part of CRAC. The Rules are unarguable in these circumstances. What is, in your analysis, is that the officer's camera is unable to provide conclusive evidence to support his visuals. He will then have to argue that the camera has a limited field of vision and how it was unable to show you using your phone, but that bit is up to him. If this matter has not reached prosecution stage, my next step would be to write to the Chief Officer of police setting out what I have said. Otherwise it's going to come down mainly to your evidence that you did not possess a phone at that time and his contention that there must be a difference between the camera and a view with the eyes.
I am a new subscriber. I want to learn the law and how to defend myself legally just to protect myself from the injustice.
Love IT
Very interesting 👌 idea 💡 ❤❤❤
A method behind the madness!
Coordinated Chaos! 🌪
Good video not sure how to use this when talking with my dad on the phone about how he didn’t bother showing up in my life but decided to stay away from me and my brothers. absent fathers