How to Win Every Argument

Like many of you, I spend a lot of time imagining arguments in my head. I have my opinion going in, and my imaginary opponent has theirs. I pretty much always win, and my opponent graciously admits defeat and changes their opinion on whatever subject. It's obviously a fantasy, and not only is it hard to win arguments in the real world, but it's even harder to genuinely persuade someone to change their stance on a topic.

But what if you could take your fantasies of triumph and make them a reality? What if you could win an argument every single time? Not only is this possible, but with some tools in mind, it's very doable. The thing is, most people are terrible at arguing for a few reasons.

The first is that they don't have a good grasp of logic. You might have come across a couple of trolls online saying, "That's just logic," as if that statement means that their argument is automatically correct. What they don't understand is that just because something is logical doesn't make it correct. Every argument is a form of logic, but logic can be good or bad.

There are two categories an argument must pass through before its logic can be called good. The first is the validity of the argument, which questions whether the conclusion of your argument follows its premise. I could suggest that since bees make honey, Hornets must make honey too. The conclusion I drew—that Hornets must make honey—clearly doesn't follow the premise that bees make honey.

The second is the soundness of the argument, which questions whether your premise is true or false. If the fact you use to support your conclusion is wrong, then your logic is unsound. I could suggest that all species of bees make honey and therefore the bees in your backyard make honey. The premise that all bees make honey is false; only one species of bees is known to make honey, and therefore the argument is unsound.

Your arguments are often weak because you argue using mere motions rather than letting the evidence do the work for you. Your gut reaction might feel strong, and it might be right, but without the evidence to support it, it just won't make for a good argument. That's why it's important to verify that your position is built on solid evidence before even considering arguing about that subject. You should be looking for some credible source with some strong references.

Does the publication you're reading have a high journalistic standard? Do they reference legitimate studies? Is the article you're reading an opinion piece or a news piece? These are the kinds of questions you need to ask yourself before selecting anything as evidence for your argument.

One important thing to look out for that people often overlook is who is funding the research. If the Association of Dairy Farmers puts out a study that says milk is the best thing since sliced bread, that's not strong evidence; there's a clear bias in the intent of their research. That's why nine out of ten dentists recommend every single toothpaste out there—because it's the companies asking the dentists themselves.

If you search for evidence to support your argument and don't find any results, that's a good sign that your opinion might be incorrect or at least unverifiable. For now, you shouldn't waste your time arguing a position that can't be proven right or wrong, because that rarely leads to genuine persuasion or you winning the argument.

I was in an argument with someone recently about how AI tools like ChatGPT work. I tried explaining that it was predictive text, but the person wasn't having it. It wasn't until I showed them an interactive section of Brilliant's course on how large language models work that they were finally convinced.

You see, unless they're professional scientists, theories just don't convince people. Real-world application does, and that's why I love Brilliant.org. Whether it's physics, math, or computer science, Brilliant offers thousands of lessons in different subjects, all of which are broken down into bite-sized pieces and taught interactively. That way, you're learning how these subjects apply to the real world and not just the theory like you did in science class.

If you've been subscribed to this channel for any length of time, you certainly know Brilliant. The reason we've partnered for so long is because I genuinely use Brilliant in my day-to-day life, whether it's winning an argument about AI or understanding complex science subjects to make these videos. Learning with Brilliant is also fun; they've got features that allow you to challenge yourself and compete with others. Since each course is customized to fit your skill level, you can start learning today, whether you're a complete beginner or even an expert.

To try out the "How Large Language Models Work" course and all the other courses completely free for 30 days, go to b.org/aperture or click the link in the description. The first 200 people to visit get 20% off a premium subscription, which unlocks every single course Brilliant has to offer.

Back to our story. Now that you've built your position, regardless of where it originated, realize that it will always be built on an assumption. When developing your argument, try to recognize the assumption you're making and present it clearly. If you're debating what style of teaching is best, the underlying assumption is likely that you want students to be better prepared for the future. Make sure that you know what this assumption is and that your opponent agrees with it.

If your opponent's underlying assumption is that they want students to be able to pass exams and aren't bothered with how they do in the future, it'll never come to a conclusion. Because while you might be arguing the same thing, you're not trying to achieve the same result.

There may be over a dozen substantial ways to support your argument, but it's best to simplify things by sticking to one or two main points. It may seem like your argument is stronger with a few more premises, but it's actually less persuasive. Remembering more than a few points will be hard for your opponent and tends to bog down your progress.

After putting these things together, you still need to make sure your conclusion follows your premise. There's a whole system of symbolic logic we could get into, but that's way too deep for this video. For now, though, logical fallacies are useful shortcuts for recognizing invalid arguments out in the world and in your own arguments.

When you're putting together a position, avoid these errors in logic as best you can. They'll also come in handy when analyzing someone else's argument fairly. Here are some of the more common logical fallacies you'll see used:

An ad hominem attack is used a lot by politicians in debates. It's basically where you just attack a person instead of their argument. Imagine someone criticizing your recycling initiative by pointing out that they saw you litter once. Obviously, your littering has no bearing on whether the recycling initiative is good or not.

The slippery slope argument presumes causality without supporting evidence. Here is a common example: "If you smoke pot, you'll get into harder drugs, so marijuana is a gateway drug." Without any scientific study that shows the link between pot and harder drugs, you can't make the argument that it's a gateway drug; you're only suggesting a slippery slope that might not exist.

Picking apart a strong argument is tough, and that's why so many people use the straw man argument. This is where you put forward an inferior interpretation of your opponent's argument so that it's easier to dismantle. A famous example of a straw man argument is the war on Christmas: organizations, businesses, and governments say "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to be more inclusive of other cultures in their holiday celebrations.

The straw man argument suggests that this move to "happy holidays" is intended to eliminate Christmas. Before presenting a counterargument, it's important to fully understand your opponent's position. You can't properly critique something you don't know well, and you risk angering the other person. Strawman arguments are dismissive, disrespectful, and divisive.

In the simplest terms, this fallacy usually shows you either embrace my position or you agree with this other terrible choice. Some cheeky debaters will use the false dichotomy fallacy to artificially strengthen their argument. They make their position seem like the obvious choice by only presenting another bad option when there are, in most circumstances, many other better choices.

It's like saying, "Either you eat an apple every day, or you get sick and need to see a doctor." Obviously, those aren't the only two options; there are many other foods you can eat to stay healthy.

This is an argument that assumes what it's proving is already true. This one is used in religion a lot, and the most famous example of this is the ontological argument to prove the existence of God. It says that if we can think of the most perfect being, like God, in our mind, then such a being must exist in real life, because being real is better than just existing in our thoughts. This, as you can probably tell, is a circular argument, because telling someone to think about God means assuming that such a being exists in the first place.

Red herrings are great arguments because arguing is a waste of time anyway. Is anything ever really resolved in debates? In case you missed that, I just used a red herring fallacy, and it's when you distract from the argument with something that may seem relevant but isn't.

Citing an authority on a subject isn't necessarily a fallacy. Most of the time, it makes for a sound argument. We need to be able to discuss things we're not experts on by drawing on real experts. The problem is when the authority figure you're appealing to isn't an expert on the subject you're debating. Imagine someone suggesting that humans will never be able to travel to Mars because Michael Jordan said so.

The suppressed evidence fallacy is when an argument ignores evidence to avoid seeming weak. We don't always have all the necessary evidence at hand, but when the facts are well-known and readily available, it's a fallacy to ignore them. Suppressed evidence is used a fair bit when discussing electric cars. Critics will suggest that since the production of electric cars is more carbon-intensive than gasoline vehicles, they are worse for the environment.

This argument ignores the evidence that suggests that for the lifetime of both types of cars, from the date of production until they drive their last mile, an electric vehicle will produce far less CO2 than a gasoline-powered vehicle, even when charging on a dirty power grid. Tokenism is when someone suggests that a token gesture adequately replaces the real thing.

Again, this fallacy is used in politics across the spectrum. Imagine a political party claiming they have a diverse array of representatives because they appointed a single Indian woman. The other day, the traditional wisdom fallacy is pretty straightforward; it's when people appeal to tradition to justify something. When they do that, be sure to remind them that tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.

Those are some of the most common logical fallacies you'll encounter or even commit yourself. You can read a complete list of accepted logical fallacies from a link in the description. Knowing how to build an argument is helpful, but unfortunately, that's not all you need to win.

You see, the problem is that humans aren't purely rational. If we don't like an argument, we're more likely to react emotionally rather than logically. We're more likely to accept a logical fallacy if we agree with the shared viewpoint. This phenomenon is known as motivated reasoning.

Have you ever watched two people in a heated argument or been in one yourself? The argument quickly becomes less about persuasion and more like trying to win a game or war. These arguments often end with someone storming out of the room. What's happening here is a pretty straightforward example of the fight or flight mechanism being triggered.

When we detect a threat, our brain's amygdala puts our body in alert mode by releasing stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol. Our hearts begin to race, our palms sweat, and our breathing becomes shallow. This is our body preparing for fight or flight. Our neural pathways to the prefrontal cortex narrow, and our ability to do complex decision-making disappears. We're trapped in one perspective that makes us feel safe.

Even our memory becomes untrustworthy, leading to wild denials and more chaos. It's like the amygdala is hijacking us, cutting us off from our more reasonable selves. This is the state we're in when we engage in a heated argument. It's hard to imagine that pointing out a logical fallacy will do much to dissuade someone in this condition.

This is why, when you're trying to win an argument, you have to think about how to avoid triggering the other person and yourself. Persuasion won't happen if your body's in emergency mode. Instead of antagonizing the other person and their argument, ask them for more details. Most people often assume that they know more than they do, and they have a general understanding of a subject but lack the finer details to support their argument.

Oftentimes, when their depths of knowledge are revealed to be somewhat shallow, people will become more humble and willing to accept correction. At this point, you definitely don't want to rub ignorance in their face. Being kind and respectful will help avoid triggering fight or flight instincts.

Many of us hold highly partisan beliefs, and when someone attacks part of that belief system, the person feels their whole ideology is threatened. To avoid triggering the partisan brain, try appealing to the other parts of a person's identity. People are far more objective about non-political values like their work ethic. Invoking an outside perspective can help someone feel less emotional about an argument.

For example, you can speak about hypothetical persons in the future and how they would feel about how we live now and the consequences for them. When someone is triggered, there's no point in continuing the argument; they're in fight mode, meaning persuasion is off the table. It's time to shut the discussion down by validating what the other person is saying to calm them down. It doesn't mean we embrace their argument; we just make them feel heard.

Once everyone is calm, you can either move forward with the debate or just grab a beer instead. In an argument, we also have to consider our own fight or flight instinct. It's often triggered without our conscious brain being aware of what's happening. When we do become aware that we're triggered, we can calm ourselves back down with some mindfulness techniques.

If you can stay focused in the moment, negative thoughts about the other person won't overwhelm you. Focus on the way your body changes as your amygdala takes over. Feel the sweaty palms and the rapid breathing, and focus on those sensations over any invasive thoughts. Try counting your breaths as well; anything is better than allowing yourself to explode on somebody.

Hopefully, you'll feel more equipped the next time you get into an argument. But remember, experience is always different from practice. You might feel better equipped to beat your opponent in an argument, but they'll constantly be challenging you. No matter how good you are at persuasion, some people will never change their stance on a subject matter because, unfortunately, facts don't change minds.

Watch the video on your screen to understand why.