Lawyers Only Serve Themselves

[phpandsql 0]

Basically, the topic is that lawyers really only work for themselves and not their clients.I know this place is for hosting actual debates, but I'm actually doing this topic for a school debating team tryout, so I'd really appreciate useful points from you guys. I'm doing the negative side. On a side note, the tryout system at our school puts us in pairs, where we debate the person we get paired up with. Because the guy I'm paired up with isn't too good, would that put me at a disadvantage, as I really don't get a chance to prove I'm good, because I have an easy task? Thanks for your help.

Edited February 25, 2008 by phpandsql (see edit history)

[Thingcubed 0]

Well, if the topic is ALL lawyers then it should be easy. Public defenders work for the state/federal government to defend people who can't afford lawyers.On the flip side, you could argue that no one actually works for anyone but themselves. Doing a good deed makes you feel good, so is it selfish to do a good deed? Etc...

[phpandsql 0]

That's the problem...how should I define it? I don't think it would be fair to define it as "all lawyers" as that gives me an unfair advantage, which the teacher will see through and penalize me for. I know I'm doing negative side so I shouldn't need to do definition, but the guy I'm paired with is unlikely to do a definition, as he hasn't done much debating before. If he doesn't put up a definition, should I put one up, as the negative side?

[Thingcubed 0]

I don't have much experience with formal debates so I couldn't tell you on that one. I guess you could just go with "If 'lawyers' means ____ then ___ " sort of argument, and then let the other person decide if they want to go with your definition.

[Joshua 0]

Indeed, which is why Lawyers make good racquetball players but not good tennis ones. :PYou might not like me for this, but I don't like lawyers for the same reason I don't like debate teams It requires arguing for a side you don't get to choose rather than out of conviction about which is right (some lawyers do choose though, as perhaps might some debaters).I think when someone is that willing to argue any side it seems like hypocrisy rather than conviction. A lot of lawyers strike me as just out to get a paycheck rather than find out the truth. How many would actually leave their client if finding out the client was guilty? Most would continue to defend because that's their job or at least they see it as their job.Their job, if so, forces them to be dishonest. I'd hate to be on a debate team unless getting to choose a side and a topic I feel strongly about. I'd hate to be a lawyer unless I get to have clients I believe innocent with the understanding that if I at any time consider them guilty I can walk away from the case.

[Thingcubed 0]

If a lawyer feels that they cannot properly represent their client then it's usually their duty to say so, and let their client find a new lawyer.

[arnz 0]

Basically lawyers that basically work for the government/state/etc have to provide a service to those clients that cannot attain and/or afford a lawyer for matters that may concern the court. However, hiring a lawyer by a rich enough client and/or middle-income earning client that requires one is another issue, whether if in that scenario the lawyer serves themselves is another question.

[jopak134 0]

not all lawyers work only for themselves there those who are pro bono.it is also not true that they don't work for themselves because if they don't then they are not humaneven those who give to the poor has a gratification of helping others thus serve themselves.government lawyers only serving themselves because they need the experience to get to the top of the legal ladder.some lawyers are interns and working for the government only because no one will hire them privately thus having no choice to work. Then serving themselves only.rebuttal in a format debate is the last choice if your points are not that good. you just have to listen to the enemy and finish them with their own words. i have one suggestion for you fight out of context. for example the say i love my children then you will say you love children do you? this is dirty but a win is still a wineven politicians do that not that im suggeting to do it but do it as a last resort