What is required? Is shouting down an opponent an acceptable methodology? Is there a difference between the legal standards applied — say, a “preponderance of the evidence” standard as opposed to “reasonable doubt” and, even if there exists an identifiable distinction with a difference, how do we know if, in the mind of the adjudicator, the proper standard is actually applied?
If, for example, in a shouting match between the two individuals, one backs down even though he or she has the stronger argument, simply out of exasperation and a sense of resignation? Do we say, “Yes, X won the argument, even though the content of his argument was idiotic and unpersuasive, because Y simply gave up”?
What, in the end, constitutes “making an argument”, and how do we learn to recognize the substantive valuation of validity, logical discourse and content-driven persuasiveness? Do people go through a class or instructive lecture entitled, “The Rules of a Valid Argument and the Way to Evaluate a Persuasive Sequence”? If not, then how do we know if the adjudicator of an argument can even be trusted?
For Federal employees and U.S Postal workers who are under FERS and need to file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, contact an OPM Disability Attorney who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law, and make sure to make the proper, effective and valid argument based upon the law which applies.
Robert R. McGill, Esquire