Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Resolution of the Lawyer Paradox

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 11:13:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 11:09:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Send me a debate challenge.

E L R A T O
L

R
A
T
O
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
If the agreement required that B take a case then A is in the right, if the agreement doesn"t require B to take a case then A has no case. And is "win his first case" mean only the first case B takes? Also, did B agree to be a litigator, and not a transaction lawyer? Also is there such a thing that can be defined as a "case" in the work of a transaction lawyer? And did B take a case and win or lose it?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 10:14:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.

That's a good point, but what if B hires a lawyer then he doesn't litigate the case, and he still hasn't taken a case.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 2:06:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.

The question isn't whether B has taken a case before, it's whether he won his first case.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 9:41:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 2:06:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.

The question isn't whether B has taken a case before, it's whether he won his first case.
No kidding. The question is why can't you recognize an equivocation fallacy within a logical exercise.
You first define winning his first case as meaning B owes A a fee.
You then create a scenario where winning his first case means B DOES NOT owe A a fee.
That within a progression of thought negates the logic of the "paradox", meaning there isn't one.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 9:51:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 10:14:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.

That's a good point, but what if B hires a lawyer then he doesn't litigate the case, and he still hasn't taken a case.
We don't even need to go that far. This isn't a paradox it is a fallacy of equivocation.
It is first established as a definition that "B winning his first case" means B owes A a fee.
It's then established that "B winning his first case" would also mean B DOES NOT owe A a fee. Typical fallacy of equivocation.....there is no paradox to address because it's a result of fallacious reasoning and or defining the same "thing" 2 different ways as it were.
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 10:11:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.


This is only a paradox if Lawyer A wins his lawsuit.

However, Lawyer A should lose the case, because Lawyer B has not yet won his first case. Once the trial is over, assuming Lawyer B did win the case, he would owe Lawyer A his payment, because facts have changed.

Although double jeopardy laws might leave Lawyer A with no legal recourse to collect his payment (I don't know, I'm not a lawyer/judge).

Of course, in reality, lawyer B would likely have someone else represent him, in which case he doesn't win or lose the case, his lawyer does. He's just successfully or unsuccessfully defended. Most likely successfully, as he's never won a case.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 12:54:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 9:51:37 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:14:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.

That's a good point, but what if B hires a lawyer then he doesn't litigate the case, and he still hasn't taken a case.
We don't even need to go that far. This isn't a paradox it is a fallacy of equivocation.
It is first established as a definition that "B winning his first case" means B owes A a fee.
It's then established that "B winning his first case" would also mean B DOES NOT owe A a fee. Typical fallacy of equivocation.....there is no paradox to address because it's a result of fallacious reasoning and or defining the same "thing" 2 different ways as it were.

it doesn't matter what else is posted in the OP, all that matters is:

"A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment."

which unless there is more or less to the agreement, then what is quoted here. If A sues B then A has no right to payment if B losses or if B hires a lawyer and his lawyer wins. the agreement is B must win his first case. there's no mention that B has to take one. the only way A could win if B takes the case and wins. But does B have to be the lawyer in the case? Could be the only question in the agreement that would give A the advantage. but there is also the question of what if B has had a case where he didn't have to be a lawyer. you know bla ba bla ba bla.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 11:30:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 12:54:56 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/27/2016 9:51:37 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/26/2016 10:14:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/26/2016 7:15:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/25/2016 11:08:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The Paradox:
A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment.

A argues:
If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him.
If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me.

Contrariwise, B argues:
If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won.
If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him.

Resolution:
To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions.

The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse.

A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process.

A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him."

This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case".

Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
If B never takes a case as you stated in the opening then B wouldn't be representing himself against A. No paradox, just a contrived contradiction. You wasted a lot of time on a simple lie. Essentially an equivocation fallacy because you're claiming that "never takes a case" should include actually taking his own case against A.

That's a good point, but what if B hires a lawyer then he doesn't litigate the case, and he still hasn't taken a case.
We don't even need to go that far. This isn't a paradox it is a fallacy of equivocation.
It is first established as a definition that "B winning his first case" means B owes A a fee.
It's then established that "B winning his first case" would also mean B DOES NOT owe A a fee. Typical fallacy of equivocation.....there is no paradox to address because it's a result of fallacious reasoning and or defining the same "thing" 2 different ways as it were.

it doesn't matter what else is posted in the OP, all that matters is:

"A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment."

which unless there is more or less to the agreement, then what is quoted here. If A sues B then A has no right to payment if B losses or if B hires a lawyer and his lawyer wins. the agreement is B must win his first case. there's no mention that B has to take one. the only way A could win if B takes the case and wins. But does B have to be the lawyer in the case? Could be the only question in the agreement that would give A the advantage. but there is also the question of what if B has had a case where he didn't have to be a lawyer. you know bla ba bla ba bla.
lol. Wins his first case implies he is the lawyer. But sure if you want to play semantics then a "case" is either the plaintiffs, defendants or the lawyers. But the OP also uses the term transactional lawyer which then leads to the conclusion that being the lawyer of record on a winning case is the implied meaning. So yes. B has to be the lawyer.
Either way the paradox is created by an equivocation fallacy, which of course duh, contradictions within defintions usually equate to an eventual paradox.
UUU
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 6:03:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
A is not to be paid.

A has zero chance to win the case.

A loses the case and lawyer C, of whom client B was has won the case.

C is I.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:16:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 10:23:45 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
I guess that settles it, there is only one solution, kill all the lawyers.
To be or not to be, that is what I just typed. The to be....nvm. Shakespeare?