Developing an Impactful Argumentative Line in 3 Steps (Both In a Monological And A Conversational Context)

We can now distinguish between different types of arguments and evaluate their rigor and effectiveness.

But the essential task lies ahead: learning how to develop a solid argumentative line with a consistent, coherent set of arguments.

There are 3 steps to achieving this:

Step 1: Making a list of all the arguments we could possibly use and evaluating their level of rigor.

Step 2: Studying our audience to evaluate which arguments have the highest degree of effectiveness for them.

Step 3: Organizing linearly the arguments, taking into account both the rigor of the arguments, their effectiveness, as well as our own subjectivity.

1. How rigorous this argument is...

It all starts with an inventory.

We scrupulously note all the arguments that come to our mind and we think of that may support our position. At this first stage, doesn't matter if they're good enough. We just consider all possible arguments, even the most unimaginable ones. Once this initial operation is completed, we look at the long list of arguments. We then identify all the objections our interlocutors might raise against them. Next, we think about all the objections your interlocuteur could say. This process is about stress-testing the rigor of each of our arguments. Finally, we take the time to complete this work by putting yourself in the shoes of your interlocutors, and listing the arguments they use to support their positions.

By the end of this operation, we have a dynamic representation of the controversy. In front of our eyes, all the arguments and counterarguments can be brought together and respond to each other, as an argumentative map. This allows us to know in advance which arguments support our theory and are strong enough to withstand contradiction. At the same time, we gain clarity in those areas where our interlocutor's objection may have an impact and therefore put us in an uncomfortable situation. This whole process is aimed at gaining serenity, so that you feel ready to attack and fight back whenever necessary. Of course, no debate is going to take place as we had originally imagined. We have to adapt. One thing is certain: the better prepared we are, the more likely we are to convince.

2... and efficient

As we've seen before : an argument is not efficient on its own, it becomes effective in front of a specific audience.

That's why we now have to select from the rigorous arguments on our list those that have the greatest impact on the people we are talking to. We need to identify the right levers for convincing. In concrete terms, you need to ask yourself the following questions: • What information does my specific audience already have? • Which talking points do they consider to telling the truth? • What are their core values?

• How do they see the world?

We must make a deep dive to extract the premises we could use. They are like the compass that helps us choose the best arguments.

But it's important to emphasize that the approach is not the same depending on whether you plan to address a silent, passive audience (monological context) or, on the contrary, to convince interlocutors (deliberative or conversational context).

Monological context

Joan Miró. Parler seul (Speaking Alone). 1948–50, published 1950

In a monological context, we only have very little information about our audience.

If the audience is large, for example, several hundred people in a conference room, the only knowledge you can gather about them is sociologic. We will then try to build personas: age, gender, place of residence, education level, professional category, cultural identity... This data will help us to raise doubt on the best arguments to choose.

Is our audience homogeneous? Then we can use very specific arguments.

Is our audience heterogeneous? We will then have to find another strategy. Either by using a set of very targeted arguments, each adapted to a part of the audience. Or by choosing broad-spectrum arguments likely to speak to everyone, without being particularly striking for anyone.

If our audience is smaller—a handful of people in a meeting room, for example—we will also be able to mobilize psychological knowledge. The fact that we are physically close to our audience; that we can easily read their reactions; that we have briefly interacted with them before speaking; or that we know them personally: all these indicators enable us to refine our rhetorical choices in real time.

Our argumentative line can in no way be standardized.

Conversational context

The situation changes entirely when we find ourselves facing interlocutors with whom we interact.

In this context, our argumentative line can no longer be roughly adapted to our audience. It must have been custom-made for them. To accomplish this high-level work, we have a formidable, and too often underestimated tool: listening.

The key: before formulating an argument, we will first let our interlocutors speak. We will then be able to analyze precisely the arguments they use, the premises on which they rely, the comparisons that speak to them, the expressions they use, the words they prioritize...

Throughout this investigation, we progressively draw not just the profile, but the whole rhetorical portrait of our interlocutors. And consequently, we adapt the choice of our arguments, but also our syntax, lexicon, and analogies.

The idea is obviously not to mimic the individuals in front of us. Simply to formulate messages that will suit them best.

This is the whole paradox of deliberative rhetoric: in the first instance, the less we speak... and the more likely we are to win the conviction.

It's a wrap! See you next Wednesday !