Argumentation has fascinated humans since the dawn of time. It has been the subject of a multitude of discussions at each period. Some great thinkers were Greek philosophers, others who have been more recently interested in this discipline are writers, lawyers, professors, speakers….

There are a multitude of types of argumentation. A vast set of tools floods books, networks and the Internet in general. All you have to do is spend time and look. But is it easy to find your way around? There seem to be so many methods, exposed by « experts » that anyone who doesn’t know anything about the topic will find themselves like at the entrance of a labyrinth, lost and perhaps discouraged. Moreover, a lawyer’s approach does not look like that of the seller. The politician’s approach has little in common with that of the marketer. The child’s strategy towards the parent is very different from that of the employee who proposes a project. The journalist’s method is far from that of the student who presents his final work…. We will have understood that each profession, each situation corresponds to a way of approaching argumentation. Fortunately, there are guidelines that can be used by everyone, and everyone’s job is to find them.

Before I continue, I would like to make one important point. Each time we are in the presence of two parties who exchange arguments under the watchful eye of a third one, silent but very present, even if distant, we will be led to consider each element exchanged under the magnifying glass of the critical mind. This obviously does not mean that we must forget our ability to think in the presence of only one discussion partner!

A lawyer who defends his client « against » that of an opposing party must first and foremost convince the third party. The politician who exchanges views (or scuds) with a counterpart seeks the approval of a third party. The child who quarrels and attracts the parents’ attention does so with the aim of influencing them.

There are thus all kinds of circumstances in which argumentative « discussion » is a facade because it aims at getting those who silently observe to adhere. Whatever these circumstances, there is a simple typology that I would like to share about the power and the staying power of arguments: weak, strong, indisputable and fallacious ones.

A weak argument is one that does not plead or very softly in favour of an idea, cause, project, product, solution or that is not taken seriously by the interlocutor. An argument can also be considered weak when the « discussion partner » is not able to listen and/or understand.

The diagram below illustrates the last point.

How should we understand this model?

There are two main scenarios that we experience each time we want to persuade someone. Either the person is able to listen to us and in particular to our arguments, or they are not.

In the first case, it means that she sees a personal relevance (how does the discussion relate to my activity, my task, my work, my situation?) and that she thinks she can gain something from it (what it is it for me?), that she can afford to devote time to the conversation, that she has enough energy when the discussion takes place (any state of fatigue that exceeds a certain threshold specific to each and every one of us, leads to a difficulty or even an impossibility to be attentive) and that she is not distracted by external factors or by physical thoughts or sensations (a person who feels ill or who is disturbed by her « small internal voice » will not be able (completely) to devote herself to the discussion). We are of course on elements that add up. They must be as many as possible, present, for this to work. This is far from being a straightforward situation.

In the second case, at least one of the following elements is not present. Either the person has no time, is tired beyond a certain limit, is distracted, either by elements of the environment or by sufficiently invasive sensations and thoughts, or does not see any apparent benefit or even does not identify the relevance to his or her situation. The best argument in the world will be way less or even ineffective and the most talented of us will see his approach doomed to failure, unless the secondary road of the above model is taken.

Let’s take an example illustrating a weak argument. You want to convince a friend to quit smoking. While there are a thousand and one ways of acting, you choose this one against all odds:

« Paul, you have to stop smoking because it stinks »

It makes sense that the probability of this having an effect is almost nil. It is true that the case of cigarettes goes far beyond the scope of this article on fallacious arguments, because the reward circuit, embedded in our brains, plays an essential role.

A strong argument is one that pleads very effectively for an idea, a cause, a project, a product, a solution… However, we must be able to identify to what extent the impact on the interlocutor will be real. I have the same restrictions regarding the ability of the discussion partner to pay attention, listen and understand the arguments. To do this, our approach will necessarily involve the identification of what represents a benefit for the other or a risk (of not adhering). It will therefore be a matter of discovering the other’s situation in order to determine which elements of our arguments will hit the target.

An indisputable argument is the one that should not suffer any discussion, any refutation, any contradiction, because it is linked to references accepted by all. This is the case of the definition of a word in the dictionary, the price of the Peugeot 607 in 2012 in the argus, the meaning of a traffic sign for the highway code… This of course never prevents anyone from contesting, finding particular cases, bypassing, evading, interpreting.

A first conclusion must be drawn: all the above must be passed through the interlocutor’s filter. It is its reading grid that will prevail, its interpretation, its perception. It is on the basis of him (or her) that we will establish the relative « power » of the arguments, not on our basis. Which implies a search on our part. In a discussion configuration without a third party, it is unlikely to convince someone without first obtaining his/her cooperation. It is a key word, too often forgotten in debates.

This leaves the last category of this very simple nomenclature: the fallacious argument. What is it about? Let us not be afraid of words, it is about manipulation, which I will define as the use of techniques, tools and methods to achieve an objective, without the interlocutor’s knowledge and consent.

The danger is the same as in other situations of manipulation: losing value, having to decide and act despite our interests or to serve the interests of others.

What are we talking about?

First, the voluntary use of certain manipulation techniques: lying by omission, abusive generalisation, selection of favourable circumstances, exceptions used as a basis for reasoning, reasoning based on the absence of contrary evidence, general conclusion on the basis of a non-representative sample, false cause, argument on the basis of consequences…

There are so many methods that making a complete list of them is impossible and unnecessary. I propose to examine 5 of them to start:

The snowball effect: if an affirmation A is accepted, then the successive affirmations B, C, D… should also be accepted. An interesting example of this effect is illustrated by Nicolas Sarkozi in the following video, from minute 25:00 to minute 25:35. Listen –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4U8SEJX99U. This tactic will work if you execute it quickly by showing great self-confidence and not giving the other parties the opportunity to come back to it, for example, by changing ubject or ending the discussion.

False alternatives: reducing one choice to two options when there are clearly others, probably better. A classic example is this: « Either you are with us, or you are against us ». This is reminiscent of a speech by George W. Bush to the troops during the Iraq war. Again, pronounced with great aplomb, this sentence will have its little effect.

False correlations: drawing a (wrong) conclusion based on a cause and effect mechanism. A personal example illustrates this. I have had the opportunity to write three books to date and all my publishers have disappeared from the market. A publisher who would tell me « I will not publish your writings because when you become the author of a publishing house, it will go bankrupt » would use a fallacious argument.

False authority: referring to an expert to support his or her claims, even if that person were an expert in a different subject matter, is misleading. When Madonna campaigned alongside Hilary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections in the United States, it was precisely this effect that was used. When a journalist invites a political expert and takes the opportunity to ask his opinion on the weather, this effect is used…

False social proof: illustrates the use of a universal principle of influence that has been demonstrated many times (Asch’s experience, Robert Cialdini’s book – psychology of persuasion…) but has been diverted from its foundations. If 1000 people think such a thing, it is because it is true, is a false statement, obviously, because 1000 can be wrong. In the program « Who wants to make millions », each candidate can appeal to the audience. This is a beautiful demonstration of false social proof.

What can we learn from this?

• That arguing is a subtle and difficult art to master. Only regular practice will allow progress to be made. The good news is that everyone can improve. So why don’t we start now?
• That a good preparation will allow us not to react « with an answer always ready », which would have the potential effect of triggering the rapid speed of thought with its attendant difficulties. As Benjamin Franklin once said: « If you fail to prepare, prepare to fail ».
• That our vigilance must be part of it. As soon as we have the impression that the reasoning we are confronted with is strange, we will appeal to our critical spirit. To do this, we will benefit from being informed, particularly about the selfish or malicious manipulation techniques to which we could be the target as well as about the functioning of our thinking (traps, shortcuts, bias…)
• That regardless of situations where we presume to be the subject of false arguments, let us get used to having opinions, judgments, beliefs, principles specified….
• That in order to gain in efficiency and impact, it is imperative to have a clear understanding of the other person’s situation. To do this, we will sharpen our questioning techniques, to make them effective and benevolent, so that they contribute to the creation and maintenance of a climate of cooperation. An effective way of proceeding will be to differentiate between seeking the fault in the reasoning or argument of the other, which would inevitably lead to a phenomenon of verbal jousting, so dear to some professions, and the desire to understand more deeply what the other person wishes to express.