> if one lawyer was arguing for the truth like a scientist and the other was being underhanded the underhanded one would have an advantage.
It's not about truth, trying to shill clearly flawed reasoning like this shows they really think very little of the ability of the system, you don't need facts or "truth" to see how their argument is broken by abstractly reasoning about it yourself.
Putting forward arguments where the opposition disproves them by revealing something that gives a more complete picture is one thing because the original argument without extended context was valid... but throwing complete - neatly packaged fallacies at the wall until one sticks because those evaluating it are stupid enough to miss it is really quite low.
It's not about truth, trying to shill clearly flawed reasoning like this shows they really think very little of the ability of the system, you don't need facts or "truth" to see how their argument is broken by abstractly reasoning about it yourself.
Putting forward arguments where the opposition disproves them by revealing something that gives a more complete picture is one thing because the original argument without extended context was valid... but throwing complete - neatly packaged fallacies at the wall until one sticks because those evaluating it are stupid enough to miss it is really quite low.