An advocate’s instinct is to disparage the other side. Motivated by indignation at the perceived insult to our intelligence and to the cause of truth, we say the other side’s position is “obviously” or “clearly” wrong; their reading of a statute is “preposterous,” and they cite no law “whatsoever.” We almost cannot help ourselves.
Such characterizations of the other side’s arguments are not effective writing. They are more likely to trigger disbelief than agreement because they are the known refuge of persons whose positions are weak. They are a way of pounding the table when you cannot pound the law or the facts. If you pound the table with “clearly,” “obviously” and “whatsoever,” the reader may figure you have nothing substantive to say.
