quote:

---

In a criminal trial, the defendent gets the last word, one final chance to defend himself. Was it always set up like that?

---

Nope - Prosecutor gives openings first and closings last. He gets the benefits of primacy and recency. But he also has the burden of proof.

In policy debates, the Affirmative side also goes first and last.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
*last post*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Is that often true?

I mean, for all the arguments that have petered out, how many here have truly stopped posting because they were overwhelmed by someone's logic and brilliance?

I think if someone has let down their pride enough to be persuaded by an argument, then they are humble enough to say it. In which case, the last words are "I agree."

Added: Thank you, Dag.

[ March 19, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
 
Here's a last word from another thread, that I wanted to post but it got closed.

An oblivion of stupidity means that it's so stupid it'll be totally forgotten, so what's the point of deleting it anyway?
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
There is a phenomenon called susceptibility. It's a key component in folks who lack primary morality. (the ability to act ethically whatever those ethics happen to be.) Susceptible people who follow the last word can always be had back later.

The opposite of susceptible is autonomous. If one is totally autonomous, there is not much use in engaging in dialogue. And yet these are the people who will elevate the better quality argument over the louder one, or the one most recently heard.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Jonny, I don't want to be specific. I'm trying to be general on purpose. There was a thread a while where someone asked if it was wrong to always need to have the final word.

Also, there was a thread on Nauvoo where someone came to agree with somebody who had a completely different opinion, and I was so incredibly impressed by the person saying that they did come to agree. So, I've been thinking about it.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Is this a sneaky way of riving the last post thread?

I have the last word and it is.

.

.

.

Kumkwat.

Try puny mortals, try to defeat the power of my last word====Kumkwat.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Dan, I don't know what riving is, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to watch.
 

---

Posted by K.A.M.A. (Member # 6045) on :
 


*last post*
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
didn't we have a thread about this a month or two ago?
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
I thought "rive" meant to split someting open. I remember studying it in high school because some kid came up with a very strange sentence to illustrate. It involved controlled substances, by the way, not anything directly violent.

I hate having the last word because it usually means I've killed the thread. I check back in to see if anyone has replied to me.

I know in an argument it is hard to keep in that last word. If I don't say anything further, I just sit there and boil.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I like discussions best that end with the people involved understanding how the other sees the world and agreeing to disagree. Too many arguments involve trying to break someone down, force them to change their paradigm. Such a dramatic change in thought does not happen lightly, certainly not as a result of an argument. And when they are being treated disrespectfully, they are a lot less likely to want to listen to you at all.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
First, the word should have been reviving. So I left off a few letters. I still believe that people who have only one way to spell a word lack imagination

Second, the last word has value mostly to people who love the sound of their own voice.
 

---