The Common Law Rules of Evidence Must Regulate Academic and Political Arguments

The Common Law Rules of Evidence provide a reasonable basis for the consideration of facts and arguments which produce probable truth. Under the Rules of Evidence, there are certain objections which make sense in an ordinary, academic or political argument.

1. Objection as to relevancy. The objection is that the facts or ideas being asserted are not
reasonably relevant to the question at issue, or even, the propostion being asserted.

2. Objection as to hearsay. The objection is that an out of hearing statement is being wrongly
used for the truth of the matter asserted.

3. Objection as to lack of foundation. The objection is that the facts or ideas being
asserted are not based on sworn testimony as to first hand sense experience, and are not based upon reasonable rules, and are not
based upon an expert opinion, by a qualified expert, which meets the standard of reasonable
scientific certainty, and therefore cannot be considered.

If the foregoing rules are used in ordinary, legal,academic and political argument and debate, then the result of such a political arugment or debate will tend towards probable truth, and will tend to eliminate fraudulent arguments and assertions.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar