Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Contoh 1
Percakapan antara Andi dan Ibunya, Andi mendapatkan nilai C dalam ujian matematika.
Mother : Andi, I heard that you get C mark on Mathematics exam. Is that right?
Andi : Yes Mom, I get C mark on math. Im so sorry mom.
Mother : But, why? Dont you study hard lately?
Andi : I dont study hard lately mom. I stay at my room playing online game.
Mother : Oh my God.. Andi, my son.. It might be a good idea to put your computer outside of
your room, so we can control you.
Andi : Mommy.. please.. I promise I will study hard.
Mother : You have promise to me. You must fulfill it.
Andi : Yes mom.
Ibu : Andi, Ibu dapat kabar kalau kamu dapat nilai C di ujian metematika ya?
Andi : Iya bu, Aku dapet nilai C. Maafin Andi ya bu.
Ibu : Tapi kenapa? Bukannya akhir-akhir ini kamu rajin belajar?
Andi : Andi nggak belajar bu akhir-akhir ini. Andi di kamar itu main game online.
Ibu : Ya Tuhan.. Andi anakku. Ini mungkin ide bagus kalau computer kamu ditaruh di
luar, biar ibu dan ayah bisa mengontrol kamu.
Andi : Ibuu.. please.. Andi janji akan belajar giat deh.
Ibu : Kamu udah janji ya. Kamu harus menepatinya.
Andi : Iya bu.
Contoh 2
Percakapan antara Dara dan Tasya. Dara merasa dirinya sangat kesulitan dalam mempelajari
bahasa Perancis. Dara akhirnya minta nasihat dari Tasya yang memang terkenal pintar bahasa
Inggris. Berikut ini adalah contoh percakapannya.
Arti
Tania: Hai Arfan, apa kabarmu?
Tania: Saya akan pindah ke Bandung minggu depan. Tetapi, saya tidak punya kendaraan
untuk membawa semua barang-barang saya. Bisakah saya memakai mobil truk milikmu?
Arfan: Kamu bilang, kamu akan pindah bulan depan. Iya kan?
Tania: Rencana saya juga begitu. Tetapi, ternyata saya harus menemani kakak saya di
Bandung dan dia pindah ke bandung minggu depan.
Arfan: Bagaimana dengan rencana kita pergi bersama teman-teman sebagai acara
perpisahan?
Tania: Oh, tenang saja. Saya akan kembali ke Jakarta beberapa hari sebelum acara itu
dimulai.
Tania: Tentu Arfan. Aku juga akan merindukan kalian. Hey, bagaimana dengan trukmu,
bolehkah saya meminjamnya?
Arfan: Tentu saja. Besok aku akan memberitahu sopirku bahwa truk akan dipinjam minggu
depan.
P: Hey, have you seen the amicus brief that was written entirely as a cartoon?
P: Not in the specific case. The judge went the other way just one day after receiving this
cartoon. But it may get better mileage in the court of public opinion, through media coverage
and in blog posts including this one.
S: Speaking of blog posts, why are we in dialogue mode rather than straightforward
exposition?
P: Glad you asked -- that is the interesting part of it. If you look at Kohn's complete brief, it
works not so much because of the imagery, but because it is a conversation - a dialogue. The
vast majority of the frames in the cartoon - 37 out of 45 - are just two people talking.
P: Because our brains respond to it. The simple back-and-forth is punchy, clear in purpose,
and easy to understand.
S: That's true. In just 800 words I was able to understand a pretty complex argument on
antitrust issues in the e-book market.
P: Right, the technique actually has more in common with the Socratic dialogues than with
modern graphics or conventional cartoons.
S: Okay, that is cool, but is there a larger point for legal persuasion?
P: Absolutely, there is a point for all litigators in and out of court. No, I'm not saying lawyers
can switch to cartoons or engage in imaginary 'Eastwooding' conversations in court. But
lawyers can apply many of the principles of dialogue to make their persuasion simpler and
more effective, and that's what the rest of this conversation will be about.
S: I figured.
P: The most important lesson of the amicus cartoon is that dialogue can aid explanation and
persuasion. And there are several contexts in which litigators can increase their effectiveness
by incorporating the principles of dialogue. That's actually an idea that ties together a lot of
the advice given in this blog.
Oral Arguments
P: Let's start with the most direct interchange you'll have with your judge: oral argument.
S: Yes, it can be tough to stick to your prepared remarks when your judge is constantly
interrupting with questions and counterarguments.
P: No, a hot bench isn't a problem, it is an opportunity. Take the example of Paul Clement's
argument to the Supreme Court on healthcare. Nearly all arguments at that level are executed
as a dialogue with the judges and not as a monologue.
S: And the same principle applies to arguments with your local magistrate judge?
P: Yes, as long as the judge tells you, or you can estimate what the judge is thinking.
Jury Selection
P: Certainly, and especially during the one moment you can actually have a conversation with
them.
P: Right. It should be a conversation, but too many attorneys use that opportunity to just ask
long questions that end with the potential juror saying "yes." Like, "Wouldn't you agree that
consumers have a responsibility to use a product safely?"
P: Yes, but it is usually pretty transparent, it doesn't truly 'commit' jurors to anything, and it is
better to use that time to actually learn something about your panelists that would inform a
strike or cause challenge.
S: And, let me guess, you do that through dialogue - actually talking with them and listening.
P: Bingo.
Opening Statement
P: Well, in a way, it can. No, you can't talk with them, and no, you can't just rely on their
non-verbal responses, but you can base your opening on the questions you expect jurors to
have.
S: The opening should just tell the story in a way that favorably frames your client's case,
right?
P: Right, but you can move the story along using rhetorical questions reflecting jurors'
genuine needs for information.
S: Like beginning a section by asking, "What actions did the company take to minimize the
risks of accident?"
P: Right, these rhetorical questions reflect what jurors might be asking themselves already,
and help to frame a key part of the story.
Closing Argument
S: So, I'll bet closing is potentially a dialogue too, but in a different way.
P: That's right. In closing arguments, the story you're telling isn't a story about what
happened, but is a story about the upcoming deliberations.
S: The questions the jurors will be asking themselves in order to reach a verdict?
P: Yes, and that includes the questions on the verdict form, as well as all the questions they'll
be asking themselves in order to get to these answers.
S: And closing argument can help jurors prepare for that dialogue?
P: It can and it should. Instead of using your one opportunity to argue as a time to just hurl
arguments at the jury, it is more effective to position yourself as a guide. Jurors feel they're
reaching their own conclusions instead of yours if you are leading jurors through the right
questions and the right information that helps them answer the questions in the right way.
Witness Examination
S: An earlier example of the need to get the right questions answered in the right ways is
direct examination.
P: Right, that truly is a dialogue, and rather than just walking a fact or expert witness through
the elements of her testimony...
P: ...It is better for the examining attorney to act as the "voice of the jury" by asking what
they'd ask, and puzzling over the same things they would puzzle over. That way, the jury
vicariously participates in the dialogue during direct.
P: Not usually, but there can be. When witnesses restrict themselves to just "yes," "no," "I
don't know," and "I don't remember," then it really is a monologue by opposing counsel. And
that's not good. If the witness is trained to fight back effectively in cross, you have a good
shot at a dialogue that includes your side.
Briefing
S: So let's go back to the example we began with -- a brief. Surely a lawyer's written product,
at least when it isn't in cartoon form, is an argument in a single voice.
P: No, not necessarily. The style of briefing that just says, "Here are my arguments," is dry to
write and boring to read. If, instead, the brief is a back-and-forth between "Here is what
they've said or will say" and "Here is why they're wrong," then it is more engaging.
S: And more effective, because it tracks the judge's own evaluation and decision making.
P: Right. And if blog readers had infinite patience, we could keep going. Graphics,
instructions, mediations, and just about every other aspect of the legal persuasion process is
better when it is conceived as dialogue.
____________________
http://www.batikjirolupat.com/blog/macam-macam-gambar-motif-batik-yang-ada-di-indonesia/
http://www.dinomarket.com/PASARDINO/33017914/Jual-Batik-Tulis-Solo/