Spencer and I had our moot court competition this weekend. It did not go the way we wanted it to. It will be a couple of months before we are able to see the actual scores, so until then we can only speculate about what on earth happened. I thought we had done well, and we ended up losing to teams that had no earthly business winning. One of the contestants that ended up moving on when we did not actually argued that the invasion of Afghanistan was the culmination of 18 years of careful diplomacy most effectively characterized by Colin Powell's testimony before the UN. None of us had the heart to tell him that that testimony was for the invasion of Iraq, and that it is generally seen as the low point of General Powell's career. The rest of this post is predicated on the idea that we did better than the judges realized. You've been warned.
One of the positive comments I got while arguing is that I am able to lie with confidence when I don't know precisely what I'm talking about. For example, at some point someone asked me what exactly had happened in a case that I had cited. I hadn't actually read the case in several months and mostly remembered the parts that I was using to help my argument. I was able to spout off four or five general sentences about the facts and holdings of the case to satisfy the judge. I don't remember exactly what I said, but I would guess that there is about a 20% chance that I got it all right. Critically, when I said it I sounded like I was positive that is exactly what that case said and meant.
The issue I'm having with this is not the lying. That would be easy to fix - I could just not say those things when I realize they are not true. The real problem is that I actually believed that that was what that case said when I described it. It's part of what makes me good at arguing. When I was arguing my case in moot court, I actually believed that our side was right. Of course, if I was on the other side, I'm 95% sure that I would believe that that side was right.
So it turns out that I have a talent for oral argument because I have a gift for self-delusion. What am I supposed to do with that?
2 comments:
I believe that is actually the definition of compulsive liar. Liars that talk themselves into believing their own lies. I'm kidding, that obviously isn't you. You just aren't remembering the facts correctly, but you think you are. Different thing entirely.
I think this is a gift/failing in alot of our family. Try to use it for good and not evil. :)
Post a Comment