The 3 Types of Arguments That Will Instantly Make You 10x More Persuasive
A rhetoric crash course
No matter who you are, your life WILL improve if you learn to be more persuasive. And that is because of one simple discipline never taught anywhere, namely: Rhetoric
Rhetoric is simply the art of getting your point across. That’s it.
Politicians use it all the time, but it’s also an essential everyday skill.
It’s simple… People who know how to talk earn more, hold higher positions in their social circles, and attract better partners. And that’s not it.
Mastering rhetoric will equip you to spot false arguments thrown at you.
You’ll know when politicians are using tricks to win votes or when friends are trying to manipulate you.
Less naive and sharper… Is what you stand to gain.
The following are the 3 types of arguments you can use to convince others your point is the best, regardless of its truth.
They’re listed from the most ethical and least manipulative to the least ethical and most manipulative.
Let’s begin.
1. Ad Rem Arguments
The most direct approach. “Ad Rem” means “to the matter” in Latin, and it’s when you confront someone’s argument head-on.
You counter their point with better data, more precise insights, or outright contradictions.
Ad Rem arguments rely on methodically dismantling the original claim.
In theory, this is the best way to convince someone because it follows a logical approach. It’s like a mathematical demonstration of the art of persuasion.
Here’s a quick example:
Claim: Public parks are a waste of money. Nobody uses them. They cost a fortune to maintain.
Ad Rem Argument: Studies show that public parks boost well-being, improve air quality, and provide spaces for exercise. Which in turn lowers healthcare costs.
Hearing this makes you question the original point. It’s precise. And it provides evidence that challenges its accuracy.
This is the least manipulative tactic since it’s focused on getting as close to the truth as possible. But, as we’ll see, it’s not always the most effective.
2. Ad Hominem arguments
“Ad Hominem” means “at the person.” this tactic shifts focus from the argument to the person making it.
It targets a lack of coherence in someone’s reasoning.
Ad hominem derails rational debate by spotlighting a universal human flaw: inconsistency.
The goal is to paint the person making the point as a hypocrite.
Their argument might still be valid, but if the foundations of their credibility are shaky. Or if they’re the wrong person to deliver the message. People are less likely to buy in.
Here’s a quick example:
Claim: Public parks are a waste of money. Nobody uses them. They cost a fortune to maintain.
Ad Hominem Argument: Easy to claim that nobody uses them when you rarely leave your office, except for a daily stroll around your beautiful house. Not everyone is that wealthy!
With Ad Hominem arguments, I don’t address the actual concern I make the person behind it seem irrelevant. And thus, not worth listening to.
When people hear this, they might stop giving the argument much weight and even begin suspecting the person has ulterior motives.
Again, this doesn’t mean the argument is wrong, but it creates the perception that it is. That’s what makes Ad Hominem more manipulative than Ad Rem arguments.
Now let’s talk about the last one.
3. Ad Personam arguments
This is the most manipulative tactic of all. Ad Personam doesn’t engage with the argument itself or the logic. But on the person delivering it.
Like the previous one, the aim is to discredit the speaker. But, this approach uses direct personal attacks.
To use ad personam arguments effectively, the key is to target someone’s relationships, appearance, age, gender, or similar traits.
If you can label them negatively before they even start speaking, you’ve already gained the upper hand in the debate.
Here’s a quick example:
Claim: Public parks are a waste of money. Nobody uses them. They cost a fortune to maintain.
Ad Personam Argument: Naturally, you always rank private investments over the public good. It’s no surprise you’d overlook the value of community. You know what? Sometimes, a walk in the park could do you a world of good.
With Ad Personam, you don’t care about the truth behind the claim or whether the reasoning is solid. What matters is labeling the person making it as a swindler.
The goal is to make that person unfit to discuss anything related to the topic, rendering their words meaningless.
This is the most manipulative and unethical strategy of all. But also the most powerful. If you can plant the idea in your audience’s mind that your adversary is a bad man/woman before the debate even begins, you’ve already won half the battle.
