The name 'Charmageddon' actually comes from a social technique that I use. Which is, you know, literally obliterating people with charm so that you can get away with saying stuff that no one else could ever get away with, you know?
Lead the audience by the nose to the thought.
When (an advocate) is not thoroughly acquainted with the real strength and weakness of his cause, he knows not where to choose the most impressive argument. When the mark is shrouded in obscurity, the only substitute for accuracy in the aim is in the multitude of the shafts.
To pull off successful attacks in debates, you have to execute with nuance and subtlety. It has to be artful.
In the world of opinion writing, there's something called the 'to be sure' paragraph. A sort of rhetorical antibiotic, it seeks to defend against critics by injecting a tiny bit of counter-argument before moving on with the main point.
Almost without exception, President Obama begins serious policy discussions by explaining why everyone else is wrong. After he assigns straw men to your views, he enthusiastically attempts to knock them down with a theatrically earnest re-litigation of what you've missed about his brilliance.
When an analogy is really singing, it's what you want it to be.
The best argument is that which seems merely an explanation.
What makes for a good argument, at bottom, is being more prepared than anyone else in that courtroom, and being willing to fight to tell your client's story - the story of why the right view of the law and my client's interests are one and the same.
Stories are one of the most powerful forces of persuasion available to us, especially stories that fit in with our view of what the world should be like. Facts can be contested. Stories are far trickier. I can dismiss someone's logic, but dismissing how I feel is harder.
Good morning. You have a moment?" It's clever the way she says it, not as a question. I would have to contradict her in order to have my moment back. I make a note to use the method in the future.
Humor disarms people to some degree and makes them a little more receptive to a notion that would normally make them angry,
It is a good point of cunning for a man to shape the answer he would have in his own words and propositions, for it makes the other party stick the less.
Whenever you're going into oral argument, it's preferable to be able to weave the arguments together. That gets harder when you split the argument into pieces.
