Convince Them With Confidence

If you mimic your opponent (in a subtle way), they are more likely to believe you.

For example, if they are sitting cross-legged, wait a few seconds and cross your legs too. And make sure that what you are doing is not too obvious.

...while you listen. This makes the speaker's arguments less persuasive, which makes your opinion look strong.

Fix the speaker in your sight as soon as they start speaking.

Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.

Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.

Conclusions: proposition X is false.

... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.

At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.

Showing empathy will lower the temperature of the debate and allow both of you to come to a resolution.

If you appear to be giving the other side’s position a thoughtful review, then the solution you propose will seem to be far more sensible. Furthermore, your opponent may come to your side without you having to do anything other than listening.

Go back to the concept of talking with someone rather than talking to someone.

It can help keep the other person cool, which pretty much always means you've won the argument.

The key to successful persuasion is to show how and why something matters in relation to that person's life and experience.

• The equivalence exaggerates the degree of similarity. I.e, stating that two people share a specific personality trait, but ignoring that they differ in other aspects of this trait.
• The equivalence exaggerates the importance of the similarity. I.e, focusing on a personality trait that two people share while ignoring that many other people also share this trait.
• The equivalence ignores important differences.
• The equivalence ignores differences in orders of magnitude. 

• Show that the similarities between the things being equated are exaggerated, overemphasized, or oversimplified.
• Highlight the differences between the things being equated. 
• Explain why these differences are more significant than related similarities.
• Provide counterexamples.
• Ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their equivalence is valid, and then demonstrate the issues with the reasoning they provide.

This is a weak case (similar to the Straw man arguments) attributed to a non-existent group: Someone will fabricate a viewpoint that is easy to contradict, then claim it was made by a group they disagree with. Arguing against an opponent which doesn’t exist is a pretty easy way to win any debate.

People who use hollow man arguments will often use vague, non-specific language without explicitly giving any sources or stating who their opponent is.

It is designed to be resistant to attacks by a defier.There arguments are difficult to avoid because they have a lot of overlap with legitimate debate techniques.

A person using an iron man argument will most likely make their own viewpoint so vague that nothing anyone says about it can weaken it. They’ll use jargon and imprecise terms. This means they can claim anyone who disagrees didn’t understand them, or they’ll rephrase their argument multiple times.

In this fallacy, someone behaves in a way that negatively affects others but then gets upset when others criticize their behavior. They will reply with a "mind your own business."
For instance, someone who doesn't see a reason to bathe, but then boards a full 10-hour flight.

It happens when someone continues in a course of action, even if evidence shows that it's a mistake.

Common phrase: "We've always done it this way, so we'll keep doing it this way." "I've already invested so much..."

• It fails to take into consideration all the available information
• It presents information in a misleading way.
• It might lead to improper analysis and might cause someone to paint a misleading picture of a certain outcome.

Also referred to as Bernoulli’s maxim, it states that, when assessing the probability that a certain hypothesis is true, we must take into account all the available information.

Many 'high-achieving' people lack flexibility, freedom, and confidence to change things in their life when they want. This is due to the build-in traps and insecurity of living a high achievers life.

A life full of complexity and self-protection lacks confidence and independence.

• It means not equating money with happiness, being self-assured, to understand that you cannot change the world but your response to everything you experience determines your happiness.
• It means being in control of your lifestyle, to be able to learn new skills, to understand that you can be anywhere, live anywhere, work and make friends anywhere.
• It is a self-assurance that your kids will be just fine, and the real goal of your life is not to earn money but to attain happiness.

Confidence means believing that you have the personal power to get things done and that your true goal is to live happily.