It can be a sign of over-confidence, or merely a regret for a mistake made. Granting the “other side” — whoever it is — the ammunition to make their argument, is normally not the best strategy in any endeavor.
Sometimes, in a debate, it is a strategically advantageous move to “grant” the other side the argument they are about to make. By doing so, two things may occur: First, a quiet recognition that the argument granted is a powerful one, but by preemptively dismissing it via the power of concession, it undermines the efficacy of the argument itself.
Second, it makes moot the necessity of the opponent to actually make the argument, thereby focusing the debate upon other issues — ones which you want to emphasize.
Such “giving” of the argument, however, is quite different from the times when we mistakenly provide fodder to the other side for greater strength to “their” argument, and concurrently, weakening one’s own position.
Thus, for example, in a OPM Disability Retirement case, it is normally not a good move to suddenly resign from one’s Federal or Postal position before filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits — for a number of reasons.
For one, it gives OPM the argument that, “How do we know whether or not your agency or the Postal Service could have accommodated you?” Giving the argument to the other side should always be a deliberate and conscious decision at the outset. It should not be a move based upon regret.
To prevent that regret, contact an OPM Disability Ret. Lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement Law and begin the process of formulating your arguments, and preventing the giving of the argument which might defeat your own case.
Robert R. McGill, Lawyer