Argumentative Point Headings #39
Definition
Structure technique · Tier Informal
Point headings written as complete assertions rather than topic labels, so that a judge reading only the table of contents — or skimming the headings — gets the entire argument. The headings are the argument in outline; the body is the proof.
Example
Instead of "I. Discovery," the heading reads "I. Respondent's Failure to Respond Within Twenty Days Waived Its Objections and Compels Production." A judge reading only the headings can grant the motion.
Anti-pattern
"POINT I — THE LAW OF DISCOVERY" followed by "POINT II — THE FACTS OF THIS CASE."
Requirements
- Each heading is a full declarative sentence stating the point, not a topic
- Read in sequence, the headings alone state the complete argument
- The headings track the order of the Judge's Checklist (#38) where both are deployed
- No heading is a generic label ("Argument," "Discussion," "Conclusion")
Why it's informal
Law school teaches headings as organizational signposts ("Standard of Review," "Argument"). Practice teaches that judges and their clerks skim headings first and often decide where to spend attention based on them alone. A heading that asserts ("The Undisputed Timeline Establishes That Respondent's Response Was Untimely") does work that a label ("Timeliness of Response") does not.
How it differs
- Distinguished from the Judge's Checklist (#38)
The Judge's Checklist maps sections to the elements the court must analyze — it is the analytical architecture. Argumentative Point Headings are the persuasion that architecture carries on a skim: the headings assert the conclusion of each section, not merely name it.