Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading and Public Speaking

by Mehdi Hasan

The New York Times bestseller, Win Every Argument is the ultimate practical guide to debate, persuasion and public speaking, by award-winning author, journalist, and interviewer Mehdi Hasan.

'A masterclass from one of the most formidable debaters and interviewers of our time' – Riz Ahmed

Arguments are everywhere – and especially given the fierce debates we’re all embroiled in today, everyone wants to win. Strong arguments, made in good faith, also have intrinsic value as they help us solve problems, uncover new ideas . . . and can also simply be fun.

In this riveting guide to the art of argument, British-American journalist Mehdi Hasan reveals for the first time how to communicate with confidence, rise above the tit for tats on social media, and triumph in a successful and productive debate. Whether you're making a presentation at work, conducting interviews, or debating current political issues with a friend, Hasan will teach you how to sharpen your speaking skills to make the winning case.

'Indispensable' – Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine

Genres: Nonfiction, Self Help, Communication, Business, Psychology, Politics, Audiobook

326 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 28, 2023

About the author

Mehdi Raza Hasan is a British political journalist, broadcaster and author.

•  Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour leader, with James Macintyre

•  Summer of Unrest: The Debt Delusion: Exposing ten Tory myths about debts, deficits and spending cuts

Reviews

[Dave Edmunds · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who doesn't love a good argument? It seems you can't go through life without getting in a good one. Whether it's at work or on twitter, the potential is always there to be embroiled in one of those neverending battles for the right to be morally superior. So you might as well be good at it!



Lucky we have award winning journalist and political debater, Mehdi Hasan, on hand with his book Win Every Argument. With that kind of guarantee how could I not pass it down? Quickly read this book and I'll never loose an argument again. Wait till the next time my daughter wants an advance on her pocket money!

The book itself is written in an engaging fashion and very much focuses on how to win those moments of conflict, although very much in a proper debate as opposed to a heated argument. It weaves in history, the authors personal experience and a touch of psychology. It even goes back as far as ancient Greece for information on how to structure your response. So it's pretty comprehensive and surprisingly easy to follow. And do you know what? I now feel more assured on how to win an argument.

One small negative is that the author does get quite political in a "my side is always right" sort of way. Which is a bit annoying. And he does often blow his own trumpet, even when it's not really deserved. There's a number of instances where it isn't even clear if he actually won the argument but that doesn't stop him revelling in that self perceived glory. Also, I've since lost an argument with my daughter and had to give her double her pocket money. So I fully intend to ask for a refund from Mr Hasan!

But if you can get past that it's one hundred percent a worthwhile read where you may actually learn something. Always a good thing!

Thanks for reading and...cheers!

[Michael Reilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent guide to arguing.

Hasan is a British journalist of Muslim Indian heritage. He has made a name for himself as an interviewer and debater. This is a practical guide to winning debates and arguments.

He starts with the classic lessons of rhetoric. Debate is as much, or more, about character and emotion as it is about logic. It is essential to maintain your credibility with the audience.

He gives practical lessons of effective presentation. For example, the rule of three is an effective tool, from Jefferson's "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " to George Wallace's "Segregation, segregation, segregation".

He has an excellent chapter on ad hominem arguments. Classical rhetoric dismisses it as a logical fallacy. Even if a person is a bad man, he can make true arguments. Hasan points out that "if a person supports an argument with a pro hominem argument (which we normally call an appeal to authority) then the ad hominem argument becomes both a necessary and proper response."

He tells good stories about catching interviewees with his tactics. I am frequently amazed at the lack of preparation by well-known journalists. They get lied to by politicians and haven't done the research to show up the lies. Hasan hammers home the importance of preparation and shares some fun gotcha moments with self-important stiffs like Michael Flynn and John Bolton.

He also has a good section on the mechanics of good performance. He discusses the importance of breathing, eye contact and body posture. (Rule of three!) He dismisses one of the silliest pieces of public speaking advice. It is not a good idea to try to relax by imagining that everyone in the audience is naked.

This book is full of good stories and good advice.

[Jake Harper · Rating 2 out of 5]

There is clearly no bigger fan of Mehdi Hasan than Mehdi Hasan

[Andy Garlikov · Rating 2 out of 5]

An author interview pulled in me, but…

…there was more politics than guidance and the guidance was more a recitation of advice from others than anything original. The reader is treated to a litany of debate wins from the author — his book, so that’s fair. If you’re a fan of Mr. Had an on TV, you’ll likely enjoy this. I’ve never seen him on TV, so I went in with an open mind and hoping to learn. I learned that the author used this as a way to promote his political interests. That’s not what I signed up for as a reader.

[Katherine Lavelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I coached debate and I've taught public speaking for a long time. I love this book. Hasan does a great job integrating scholarly research and his own experiences as a journalist in this book. I am teaching communicating effectively in the fall, and this book got me thinking about some different ways to approach class material.

[Murphy C · Rating 5 out of 5]

12/4/23
Update: Fvc% MSNBC's corporate management. Mehdi's the most talented journalist in mainstream American TV news. He's fvc%ing brilliant and tenacious! Above all, he is an eloquent and economical writer, far more disciplined and insightful than the vast majority of his peers, certainly more than I myself. This book is a tour-de-force.

With the audiobook Mehdi manages expertly to create the illusion of interpersonal intimacy: I really felt sometimes like he was speaking directly to me (from the speakers in my car, inexplicably 😆). I have a bit of public speaking experience, and so I appreciated and enjoyed the book on a deeper level than I might otherwise have, say, had I come to it only as a Mehdi Hasan fan. Here, the author offers a masterclass on rhetoric and public speaking.

I intend to buy a hard copy so that I can read it again and more carefully in the future. Can't recommend highly enough!

[Gabrielė Bužinskaitė · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was mostly disappointing. The book material is 30% argument-winning techniques and 70% political agenda. Ugh.

The book title is misleading. I get that the author, an Indian Muslim journalist from the UK, finds many issues, such as Islamophobia, vital. But that's not what I signed up for; the book promises to help win arguments.

Political bias aside, the tips are practical and effective. I learned a lot and am already practicing the tips when writing this review. Had the author zipped his lips about his political beliefs, the book could have been great, albeit too brief.

I‘m unforgiving of the attempts to sneakingly influence me politically when the book's premise is anything but that.

[Levi Van Hoecke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Caveat: I listened to this as an audiobook, and though I listened carefully, I did not strictly speaking “read this book”.

It’s a good book for brushing up on some of the basics of discussion, debate, and public speaking, though the best applications are those for speaking publicly. I appreciate Hasan’s emphasis on doing your research and providing an easy to follow structure in what you are saying. There’s some nuggets in the book as well I had never heard before. One piece of advice in building confidence is to randomly challenge a coworker or friend to a friendly argument. I think that’s a fun idea.

Overall, the book has one critical flaw in its ethos that I happen to disagree with. It’s ultimately a book about winning. It’s about building the strongest argument to defeat your opponent, ways to improve your image and dilute the image of your opponent, etc. The problem is if everyone took this approach, as people often do, they would lose the forest for the trees. Discourse should be about pursuing truth and debating the merits of different arguments. Not about scoring a win on people.

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I got this in a grab bag at my local bookstore…an advanced copy. I got through five chapters before I skimmed the rest, getting tired of the “look at me, look at how well I did this” way of writing. I really like Hasan a lot as a political commentator. But, in a book about winning arguments that doesn’t present much, if any, new information on the topic, that writing style got grating. And, it’s hard to get much about winning arguments out of a book without practicing it. So, in my opinion, not much value in reading this one.

[Annie Jarman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ch 1: win the audience over
- get to know your audience beforehand, cater to them (use sources they will approve of and trust - don’t take my word for it, use events they are familiar with)
- Grab their attention from the outset (skip the pleasantries, say something provocative/unexpected, create a question, introduce a story)
- Connect with them throughout (eye contact, be personal)

Ch 2: feelings, not just facts
- People’s minds aren’t changed by facts. Pathos beats logos every time.
- How to master pathos:
- 1. Tell stories. “They who tell stories control the world.” People are more respectful of moral values when conveyed through persona experience rather than facts.
- 2. Choose words carefully. Express emotion and character. Speak decisively.
- 3. Show, don’t just tell. When speaking emotionally, do not suppress your own emotions. The beginning and end of a speech are the best places to make an emotional appeal. Start and end with emotion.

Ch:3 Show your receipts
- If you want to convince that you are right, you need to be prepared to show your evidence
- Your opponent will be prepared to rebut surface level and common topics. So if you want to throw them off, dig deeper for receipts.
- The best receipts are physical things that you can point to
- When you have good receipts, they do the heavy lifting, they speak for themselves.

Ch:4 Ad Hominem
- Latin translation: to the person
- Conventionally held as an informal fallacy: attacking your opponent instead of their argument with the false assumption that by doing so you also disprove their argument
- In the real world, it can be useful to play the ball and the person. Use ad hominem to challenge the ethos not the logos and it is not a fallacy.
- Ethos: we believe someone more when we have high value of their character. Character can be the most effective means of persuasion. If you are unwilling to attack their credibility, they are winning from the beginning.
- Ad hominem circumstantial: saying that their argument is driven by a hidden bias or conflict of interest.
- Ad hominem to queque: about hypocrisy. Zeroes in on past claims or actions that contradict their current claims or actions.
- Challenge 3 C’s: 1. character. 2. credentials (if they bring attention to it first. What exactly do you know about this? When did you become an expert on this topic? ), 3. claims (not their current argument, but claims from their past where they have been wrong ).

Ch 5: listen, don’t just speak
- Critical listening: is it true or false? Is it logical? Can I trust it? Look for: 1) false claims, 2)fallacious arguments, 3) concessions.
- Keep an open mind - look for where they are strong and where they are weak
- Take notes of points you want to address
- Empathetic listening

Ch 6: make them laugh
- makes the audience pay attention, like you, and remember your argument
- Humor helps build rapport with the audience, tackle a serious subject, and make a fool of your opponent
- Do: make fun of yourself, use physical expressions
- Don’t: be offensive or tell jokes about controversial topics, be wooden,

Part 2: Tricks of the Trade

Ch 7: Rule of 3
- 3 words, 3 lines, 3 points - this creates a climax of your rhetoric. It is also a claptrap for the audience.
- Rule of 3 creates structure

Ch 8: Judo Moves
- 1. Concession
- to win a debate or gain the upper hand in an argument, you often have to be flexible and willing to yield a point.
- Throw your opponents off balance, cuts off their ramping energy, makes you seem reasonable to others
- 2. Preempting the opposing argument
- 3. Adjust the frame. Question the existing premise. Define the terms how you want them to be.

Ch 9: the art of the Zinger
- zingers are meticulously prepped beforehand but delivered as if they are spontaneous

Ch 11: Fighting the gish gallop
- trump is reigning champ of the gish gallop
- How to defeat it?
- 1. Pick one instance and defeat it, then say this is representative of the rest of their shoddy claims
- 2. Don’t let them continue or evade. Don’t let them bowl you over or get up to speed.
- 3. Point out the gish gallop technique to the audience.

Part 3: Behind the Scenes

Ch 12: Confidence
- confidence = belief in yourself. It inspires action and presence.
- For winning an argument, confidence > competence
- Confidence might build off ability, but it’s rooted in our ability to trust ourselves.
- Visualize success
- Practice in mild conditions, i.e. speak up at family dinner, engage in a debate with a friend, ask for a pay raise. You win some or you learn some.
- Most people want you to succeed.
- Fake it till you become it
- Fix your body language. Chin and head high. Stand straight, shoulders square. Don’t cross arms. Keep palms upright. Don’t forget.
- Don’t speak too fast
- Do smile when appropriate
- Don’t be afraid to pause
- Speak at a point 3 ft behind the person’s face. Helps you project.
- Make eye contact. When speaking, maintain eye contact 50% of time. When listening, maintain eye contact 70% of time.


Ch 13: Keep Calm and Carry On
- if you lose your cool during an argument, odds are that you will lose that argument
- Breathe deeply to chill out
- Find humor in your situation
- Talk to yourself in the third person

Ch 14: Reps Reps Reps
- Focus on expression, hands, tone, enunciation, pace, and volume
- Record yourself
- Role play
- Be wary of confirmation bias. You should be able to convincingly make the argument of the other person. Create a steel man argument.

Ch 15: the grand finale
- 1. draws the audience in
- 2. Drives in the stakes of the argument
- 3. Final call to pathos
- 4. Summarizes key points of your argument
- If you have an important point to make, don’t be cute or clever. Use a pile-driver. Hit it hard. Repeat your themes from your intro. (Top and tail structure).
- A story can be a good way to end a speech

[Allen Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is fun, easy to understand strategic and tactical advice on how to win a debate (specifically, formal and with an audience), how to make a convincing speech, or how to conduct an effective journalistic interview. Mehdi Hasan, who is known for being a tough and thorough interviewer is an excellent teacher—he knows of what he speaks.

Of course, in this day and age, most of us don’t have the opportunity to engage in a formal debate. Most debate occurs on social media, where logic and civility are often lacking, to put it mildly. Nonetheless, some of what Hasan says can be put to use in that format. If you ever have occasion to participate in a formal debate, or are faced with giving a convincing speech, you’ll definitely want to read this book.

[Shawn · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you want to simply “win” every argument then this may be a good intro book for you. If you want to have a discussion in good faith with others where you both inform others and learn something this is not the book for you. I was hoping for more of the latter and that’s why I only gave it 2 stars. We do not need more arguing, we need more listening and good faith discussion.

[Sebastian Gebski · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a ridiculously good book. If I could, I'd rate it 6 out of 5 :)
It's short; it doesn't cover the full spectrum of solutions & potential advice, but what it delivers - it delivers in a stellar manner.

One clarification I should probably start with - this is NOT a book about convincing your opponent(s) (in a debate/discussion) - it's all about the public debate (so not ANY debate) & it's about defeating the opponent, even if sometimes it's not achieved with pure merit/strength of arguments (e.g., attack ad hominem or ridiculing your opponent). It's also not really about language/psychological tricks ("NLP") - the tools mentioned here are actually much more simple: how to use three modes of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos) to your advantage.

And who would you like to learn it from, if not Mehdi Hasan? He's extremely smart, he can be manipulative, he knows how to use his audience, and he's also great when it comes to coming prepared. Personally, I tend to disagree with him on many important issues, but it doesn't mean I don't respect him - that would not be OK.

How practical is the book? Hmm, there are definitely many pieces of practical advice here, but here are clearly paragraphs where it looks like Hasan is mostly about showing off a bit ;P One good example here is the chapter on "zingers". Seriously, if it was as simple as MH presents it ...

Nevertheless, I had tons of fun while reading "Win Every ...". A stellar book that was definitely worth the time & money.

[Ultra Lady · Rating 2 out of 5]

This felt way too male and a little narcissistic for my taste. It's all about winning in debates, and it got political. Almost a one star for me.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love learning tools for debate, so I grabbed this book and absolutely loved it. I wasn’t 100% sure who Mehdi Hasan was, but after the introduction, I looked him up and realized I’ve seen some clips of him. He’s the host of an MSNBC show, but his resume is pretty extensive, and the man loves to debate, and he has great tips for others.

I enjoyed this book a ton for a multitude of reasons. First off, Mehdi has a ton of experience, so there are practical anecdotes throughout the book to back up what he’s saying. I listened to the audio version, so there were actual clips from the events, and that was cool so you could hear his style and where he emphasizes different words and other skills he discusses in the book.

What I really liked about this book was that he knows all of the “rules” for debate, but he argues for some unconventional methods. For example, he has a whole chapter on using ad hominems, which are frowned upon in debate. He explains how there’s a time and place for them and also explains how you need to watch out for when people question your character. But I liked this part because it’s more realistic than other books that have you stick to the regular rules of debate while others are punching below the belt constantly.

If you’re interested in becoming a better debater or even a public speaker, this is the book for you.

[Maja Repcic · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book should be called "how to lose arguments". The answer: when the authors bias shows from a hundred miles away. This ruins ethos.
Waste of time.

[Daniel Gil Muñoz · Rating 4 out of 5]

El libro está dirigido a las personas que vayan a participar en un debate formal, por ejemplo en un concurso de debates o en una tertulia televisada. El autor elabora una guía sobre los que considera deben ser los aspectos fundamentales a la hora de llevar un debate, en un sentido muy amplio. Por una parte está el asunto de elaborar una argumentación coherente, sin fisuras y basada en hechos. Por otra, el autor enfatiza la importancia de apelar a las emociones del público, y por momentos considera esto como prioritario. Al final, como era de esperar, no hay ningún secreto para debatir más que una cantidad importante de trabajo y esfuerzo disciplinado y en la dirección correcta. Me ha parecido bastante llamativo que el autor considera perfectamente válido utilizar argumentos ad hominem que ataquen a la persona, y no solamente lo que dice. Haciendo el símil con el baloncesto, propone "atacar al rival y al balón". Me ha gustado bastante leer este libro por una parte porque está escrito de manera entretenida, y por otra porque nunca había leído sobre oratoria, y sobre los debates y su papel tengo una visión bien distinta a la del autor. Pese a estar enfocado a los debates formales, no pocas de las nociones que presentan pueden ser útiles en situaciones cotidianas, y por eso me parece un libro recomendable.

[Camila H · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 ⭐️

[Libby C · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic, learned a lot about debate and argumentation. This guy knows his stuff.

[Jennifer Abdo · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought it was going to be more of a clever memoir title rather than a how to, but it was fine.

He's one of my favorite interviewers for holding power to account, advocating for human rights (when even liberals fail) and making bullsh*t artists squirm. He is not a humble guy in this volume (which is a little annoying), but I didn't read it looking for that characteristic. He's good at what he does - winning arguments - and he's in the right profession.

It was a decent read. One could very likely use this as a guide to practice and brush up on your debate skills - especially if you practiced a lot and had time and a team of researchers. There are lots of good anecdotes in there and I learned more about him, which was what drew me to the book in the first place.

One last thing. I kinda hate the title. It is depressing because it reminds me that we often make everything a competition even when it need not be or would be better for all involved if we had less domination in human relationships. But, yeah, it'd be nice to call on these skills to stop the disingenuous and liars in their tracks on occasion.

[Thom · Rating 5 out of 5]

This short book covers a lot of points on both debate and persuasive arguments, with a ton of anecdotes. Apparently the audiobook has actual clips from those interviews and speeches, so I'll want to reread in that form soon.

The author is a journalist and this is an argumentative time. As a major plus, the book has a chapter focused on the Gish Gallop, or what the Kremlin has referred to as the Fire Hose of Falsehood. This is best summed up by this quote:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it."

Confronting the lies and combatting this "technique" is difficult, and Hasan's tips are gold. Really appreciated the history of Gish as well. Looking forward to rereading this as an audio book soon!

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is about debating (winning over an audience) more than winning an argument, and it’s mainly about how clever the TV personality author is. Apart from that, it goes over the ancient basic principles of persuasive argument: ethos, pathos, logos.

[Jung · Rating 2 out of 5]

A short introduction to the ancient art of rhetoric.

Mehdi Hasan has been arguing his whole life. Today, it’s how he makes his living. As a TV pundit and anchor, he’s gone toe-to-toe with presidents, prime ministers, and spy chiefs inside the White House, Downing Street, and even the Saudi embassy.

Hasan doesn’t just love arguing, he also sees it as the lifeblood of democracy. Arguments, he says, expose us to new ideas and help us solve our problems. Philosophically speaking, they lead us to the truth. As the English thinker John Stuart Mill put it, to know only your side of an issue is to know little. In other words, if you can’t back up your own claims and refute those of your opponents, you don’t really have a good reason for preferring either opinion.

Knowing how to argue well also has practical benefits: it’s a soft skill that can help you advance your career and advance your lot in life. In the words of Winston Churchill, oratory is a precious gift: those who wield it enjoy a “power more durable than that of a great king.”

In this book, we’ll be looking at this vital skill and helping you win your arguments. To do that, though, we first need to correct some common misconceptions about what we're doing when we argue.

-

Persuasive arguments appeal to facts and feelings

Facts don’t care about feelings. So goes the internet adage, anyway. It’s an appealing idea: truth is truth, whether or not we want to believe it. From this thought follows the equally appealing idea that debate is an inherently rational activity. It’s about following the facts and accepting the better argument – the argument which best fits the evidence.

But it’s never been that simple. The ancient Greeks called the language deployed in such debates rhetoric – a word derived from rhetor, meaning “public speaker.” But for philosophers like Plato, rhetoric was downright pernicious. Honey-tongued debaters, he said, tend to be amoral. Theirs is an art of persuasion that’s just as easily turned to deceiving audiences as it is to the noble task of uncovering truth. Other thinkers didn’t go that far. Aristotle, who wrote the book on rhetoric, literally and figuratively, noted that proper reasoning or logic and rhetoric may be separate pursuits, but they can – and often do – overlap.

For Aristotle, persuasive speech has three modes. The first is ethos – the Greek word for “character.” Ethos in this context concerns the credibility of a person. We’re more inclined to accept what a practicing doctor has to say about vaccinations, for example, than an anonymous blog author. At least, we should be, anyway; as we saw during the pandemic, the link between expertise and credibility isn’t as strong as it once was – but that’s a different topic.

The second is pathos or “emotion.” In Aristotle’s words, “Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile.” Imagine that our doctor’s credentials haven’t persuaded their reluctant patient, so they start telling the patient a story about a couple in perfect health who refused to get vaccinated. Both died within 15 days of each other, the doctor says, leaving behind four young children. That’s pathos: the attempt to sway an audience by appealing to powerful emotions such as love and fear.

Finally, there’s logos or reasoning. This form of persuasion deals in facts and figures. If our doctor points out that multiple peer-reviewed studies show that COVID vaccines result in a 90 percent decrease in the risk of hospitalization and death, they’re appealing to logos. 

In contemporary debates, it’s usually logos that’s asked to do the heavy lifting. That makes sense: we extol facts and figures, data and statistics, because we want our arguments to be rooted in truth. In an ideal world, the evidence would do its own talking. But that’s rarely how public debates play out. In the real world, logically unassailable arguments fall short and leave audiences cold. People are stubborn. Reactive. Overconfident. Afraid of change. More importantly, they’re emotionally invested in beliefs, ideas, and ideals. That adage, then, has it back to front: often enough, it’s our feelings which don’t care about the facts.

For self-avowed rationalists, the issue is simple: we’ve forgotten how to reason properly. If we trained ourselves to think more dispassionately, public debates would become more rational. 

That view assumes that reason and emotion are separate – and contradictory – things. But new research into human cognition has called that assumption into question. As the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio summarizes the findings of this new research, humans are neither thinking nor feeling machines, but “feeling machines that think.” Let’s break that down.

In his acclaimed book Descartes’ Error, Damasio looks at people who’ve suffered damage to the part of the brain which handles emotional processing – the prefrontal cortex. At first glance, these people seemed to be reasoning machines: theirs was a black-and-white world of pure logic in which the fuzzy gray tones of emotions had disappeared. Being unemotional, though, didn’t make them more rational. Instead, they became “uninvolved spectators” in their own lives who struggled to assign different values to different options. They could know, but they couldn’t feel. Reason, Damasio concludes, isn’t a standalone faculty. Without feelings, our decision-making landscape becomes “hopelessly flat.” In short, to make rational decisions we need a jolt of emotion. 

What does that have to do with winning arguments? In a word, everything. To win an argument, you have to get your listeners to make a decision – they have to choose you over your opponent. If neuroscientists like Damasio are right and the heart leads the head, pure logos won’t cut it: you also have to appeal to listeners’ feelings. This isn’t about jettisoning reason and simply saying what people want to hear. The point, here, is that audiences may only accept better, more truthful arguments once the person making them has established an emotional connection. Put differently, pathos may be the best vehicle to deliver logos.

-

If you want to persuade people, tell stories

How, then, can you appeal to listeners’ emotions while still making rational, evidence-based arguments? Well, you can tell stories.

Storytelling is as old as humanity. We’ve been telling each other stories ever since our distant ancestors started painting wooly mammoths on the walls of their caves. According to the evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar, around two-thirds of our daily conversations consist of a particular kind of story: gossip. When humans communicate, in other words, they tell stories. 

The persuasive power of well-crafted stories is well documented. Take a 2007 study by Deborah Small, a professor of psychology and marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Small and her coauthors found that people are much more likely to give money to charity if they’re told stories about an “identifiable victim” than they are if they’re presented with accounts of “statistical victims.” Simply put, a story about the suffering of a single child with a name and a face pulls at our heartstrings. A description of millions of nameless and faceless people suffering in the same way, by contrast, leaves us relatively cold. The trick, as charities understand, is to make the individual child a symbol of all that statistical suffering. That’s one way pathos can be deployed in the service of logos.

As Small explains, focusing on a single individual creates a relatable narrative. It’s concrete and personal in a way that abstract statements like “820 million people around the world go hungry every day” aren’t. When we’re told about the awful hunger cramps this one child suffers every day, we suddenly get it. We can understand and even feel their pain. Good stories light up the emotional regions of the brain that handle things like empathy. When that happens, we receive that emotional jolt we mentioned earlier. That jolt transforms an abstract moral idea – it’s wrong that people don’t have enough to eat – into a concrete decision to do something about it.

The takeaway here is simple. No matter how serious or technical the subject you’re discussing, it’s much easier to get your point across if you tell gripping and relatable stories. Sometimes, personal anecdotes will help you do that. In other contexts, you can think about how the topic impacts the lives of real people. People with names and ages, families and friends, hopes and fears and dreams. If you want to win arguments, talk about them and tell their stories.

-

Sometimes it’s okay to play the man, not the ball

In sports like soccer and basketball, you’re told to play the ball, not the man – or woman. Tackles that win the ball are fair game. If you bring down your opponent, though, you’ve committed a foul. It’s the same in public debates – or so we like to think.

Your aim is to go after the argument, not the person making it. Bringing down an opponent is the logical equivalent of a sporting foul: a fallacy. It’s ad hominem – an argument “to the person.” In theory, the merits of the person speaking have nothing to do with the soundness of what they’re saying. As Michael Austin, the author of a best-selling study about rhetoric called Reading the World, puts it: if Adolph Hitler said the world was spherical, that wouldn’t make it flat.

In theory. The thing is, there aren’t umpires to call fouls in real-world debates. As the British philosopher Tom Whyman jokes, “Only an idiot would dismiss ad hominem arguments.” For better or worse, shooting the messenger is an effective rhetorical tactic. Just ask Donald Trump. Pundits condemned his vitriolic ad hominem attacks and dubbed him a schoolyard bully. But calling his opponents liars, weirdos, and crooks won him the Republican Party’s nomination and then the presidency. “Low-Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted” never stood a chance.

So where does that leave us? We have three options, really. First, we could become unabashed Trumpians and insult our way to victory. Let’s assume we don’t want to do that, though. Second, we could take the high road and play the ball even when our opponents don’t. Or third, we could split the difference and make occasional use of ad hominem arguments. That’s the option Mehdi Hasan recommends. The key, he says, is to use this tactic in appropriate contexts.

What does he mean by appropriate? To explain that, we need to circle back to Aristotle. Recall what the Greek philosopher said about ethos. This mode of persuasion, he argued, is about credibility. As Aristotle sees it, we’re more ready to believe good people. This is especially true, he says, when “exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided.” Often enough, he adds, a person’s character and reputation may be their most effective means of persuasion.

What do you do, then, if your opponent hones in on your greatest asset and starts trying to demolish your credibility? If you’re unwilling to respond in kind, you’ve given them an unfair advantage right out of the starting gate. So to return fire is anything but unjust: in fact, it restores a level playing field. That’s one context in which ad hominem retorts might be justified. In other cases, Hasan suggests, there are sound reasons for you to take the initiative.

Consider conflicts of interest. Imagine a major study is published which claims to show that climate change isn’t nearly as bad as we thought. The caveat: it was entirely funded by fossil fuel companies. In theory, that fact doesn’t speak to the validity of the study’s claims and we should take it on its own merits. But being fair-minded doesn’t mean being naive. We might want to hold fire before dismissing the study’s findings, but failing to apply extra scrutiny to a case in which there’s such a clear conflict of interest would be to risk getting duped. That the authors of such a study were paid by companies with a less than purely academic interest in the topic is obviously relevant! That’s just common sense.

Then there’s hypocrisy. In the United States, pro-choice advocates often point out that prominent public opponents of abortion rights have privately supported women in their lives having abortions. The Republican lawmaker and pro-life campaigner Tim Murphy, for example, had to resign from Congress in 2017 after it was reported that he’d asked his mistress to have an abortion. Again, in theory, that’s irrelevant. Whether life begins at conception or fetuses feel pain has nothing to do with whether Tim Murphy is a hypocrite.

But the fact is, we do care about hypocrisy – and rightly so. If you can’t abide by the rules you’d have others live by, there might be a problem with your beliefs. Or maybe you just think rules are for other people. Either way, there are questions to be answered – questions that go to the heart of political and moral debates. Calling someone a hypocrite, in other words, isn’t necessarily a schoolyard insult. In some cases, it brings substantive issues like justice, equality, and the structure of our societies into view.

In short, Ad hominem arguments can play an important role in debates. If we want to judge the usefulness of such arguments, philosopher Alan Brinton suggests, we should remind ourselves that they are rhetorical, not logical. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, not a science of premises and conclusions. As we’ve seen, sometimes such arguments are little more than name-calling; in other cases, they can help us think more clearly about the issues we’re debating. It all comes down to context. Dismissing arguments out of hand is, indeed, a fallacy. Ad hominem arguments that address opponents’ credibility, raise biases, or put them on the defensive, by contrast, are legitimate rhetorical moves that go all the way back to ancient Athens.

-

Winning arguments isn’t a matter of being right or wrong – it’s about persuasion. That has an obvious downside: unscrupulous actors can use all kinds of dirty tricks to come out on top. But that doesn’t mean that the facts don’t matter. Effective arguments make those facts compelling by appealing to people’s emotions and calling out bad-faith actors.

[aditi mahajan · Rating 4 out of 5]

tbh i loved this book hahah i think i have my own thoughts on the author as a person but i think regardless of those the fact he is a great orator and debater cant really be discounted. he did cite his own work more than anything else lol but i wasn’t really expecting different after meeting him in real life.

[Nazmus Sadat · Rating 4 out of 5]

- ⁉️ 𝐐𝐎𝐓𝐃: What's the last argument you wish you could've won?

📺 🗣️ That razor-sharp question Mehdi Hasan fired at Gowher Rizvi, the then International Affairs advisor to the then Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina on Al Jazeera English’s Head to Head (1 March 2019, "𝗜𝘀 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗵 𝗮 𝗢𝗻𝗲-𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲?"; L͟I͟N͟K͟: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlROb... ),— "𝑫𝒐 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌 … 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕? 𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒅 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌: 𝒈𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒌𝒉 𝑯𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒂, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕’𝒔 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒈𝒆𝒕 𝒃𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒂."—was my first real introduction to the man. From that moment, I became a fan, and the day his book was published, I knew I had to read it. Having finished it, I can tell you: it does not disappoint.

📜 ⚠️ 𝐓&𝐂: Still, don���t expect to “WIN” ANY ARGUMENT with your girlfriend/partner/wife, daughter or mother—that’s simply not possible, and not going to happen, ever 😅.


📖 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤: Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking
✍️ 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫: Mehdi Hasan
🌐 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐞: Non-fiction | Self-Help/ Personal Development | Public Speaking | Communication Skills | Rhetoric |Leadership/ Business Communication
📅 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝: February 28, 2023 by Henry Holt and Co.
📊 𝐌𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)


Ω 𝐎𝐧𝐞-𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐒𝐲𝐧𝐨𝐩𝐬𝐢𝐬: In 'Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking', Mehdi Hasan distills his decades of experience as a journalist, broadcaster, and master interviewer into a sharp, accessible guide that blends timeless rhetorical techniques with practical strategies for modern discourse—whether on stage, in the media, or across the dinner table.

📖 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤/ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (Short Version): This part will be anything but a discussion. If I had to put the shortest, most condensed cheat sheet of Mehdi Hasan’s teachings, it would be:

* Preparing like a madman — researching deeply, collecting receipts, anticipating counters.
* Opening strong — starting with a fact, a story, or a question.
* Combining Logos + Pathos + Ethos — balancing logic, emotion, and credibility.
* Delivering with presence — controlling voice, tone, and body language.
* Listening actively — repeating, refuting, and pivoting.
* Deploying zingers & judo moves — using them sparingly and strategically.
* Handling hostility calmly — letting opponents look weak by overreacting.
* Closing with clarity — finishing with a crisp call to action.
* Winning responsibly — focusing on persuasion over point-scoring.

[I have elaborated a few on these after '𝐌𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬' section, so that anyone interested gets a bit more idea.]


💭 𝐌𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬: Don't come into this expecting some gentle, feel-good guide on "how to be a better listener." That's not what this is. Win Every Argument is a weapons-grade toolkit for intellectual combat. It's Mehdi Hasan's philosophy distilled into print: persuasion isn’t about playing safe; it's about clarity, conviction, and courage.

This book shows us the tools and tactics of the world’s greatest speakers. The title may sound provocative, but the real goal here is to help us become sharper, more effective communicators—people who can challenge both ourselves and others. It’s not about compromise or gentle negotiation; it’s a guide to winning as a champion debater, master rhetorician, and sharp strategist in the art of argument.

Mehdi Hasan doesn’t just teach us to speak louder; he teaches us to be smarter. This book brilliantly fuses the ancient wisdom of Aristotle—ethos, pathos, logos—with the brutal realities of the modern media landscape. He doesn't just theorize; he takes us behind the scenes to show exactly how he frames arguments, anticipates counterpoints, and uses humor, emotion, and body language. Whether he’s talking about classic rhetorical techniques or the strategic use of silence, every lesson is backed by a real-world example of him putting it into practice.

For someone like me, whose own argument skills aren’t great, this was invaluable. I know I have strong points, empathy, and common sense, but I also let emotions get the better of me—so many discussions end up at an impasse. That’s one of the reasons this book resonated so much with me. It felt like a guide I needed. I even found myself reading it slowly, letting each tactic and technique sink in before moving on. The insights into public speaking, persuasion, and putting forth one’s points are genuinely powerful.

For anyone in Dhaka's vibrant, often contentious political and professional spheres, this is an invaluable toolkit. In a world where public discourse is often reduced to shouting matches on social media and political spin is a default setting, the ability to think critically and argue with clarity is a survival skill. The techniques Hasan teaches and the blueprints he provides—from meticulous research to effective delivery—are directly applicable to everything from negotiating a salary or defending a thesis, to simply making our point in a meeting. The chapters on preparation are worth the price alone. His tales of dismantling unprepared interviewees (looking at you, Michael Flynn) are a powerful lesson: do your homework, and you hold the power.

Now, is it perfect? No. And in the spirit of honest debate that Hasan champions, it's only right to address the weaknesses. There’s a distinct tone of "my side is always right" that runs through certain sections. As an award-winning journalist and debater, his confidence is earned, but it occasionally veers into self-congratulation. There are instances where he claims victory in an exchange where, frankly, the win isn't as clear-cut to the viewer as it is to him. The trumpet-blowing can get a bit loud. Furthermore, while he excellently details offensive tactics—how to land a punch—I found myself wanting more on pure 'defense'. How do we expertly shield ourselves from the very same razor-sharp techniques he teaches? A deeper dive into defensive strategies would have made this already excellent guide truly comprehensive.

But I would ask not to let my critiques fool you. This is an exceptional, engaging, and immensely practical guide. Hasan’s writing is witty, fast-paced, and packed with unforgettable anecdotes and modern examples. He demystifies everything from the power of the ‘rule of three’ to why the classic ad hominem fallacy isn't always a fallacy in real-world debate. He even debunks terrible public speaking advice (please, never imagine your audience naked). This book is a page-turner that will genuinely make us a more compelling, confident, and persuasive communicator.

Ultimately, this book is not a magic spell for winning every argument. But it will arm us with the tools to think, speak, and argue with a level of clarity and confidence we didn't know we had. It’s perfect for Journalists, students, professionals, activists, and anyone who needs to persuade, negotiate, or simply hold their own in a heated debate. In a world full of noise, Hasan's book teaches us how to be heard.

📖 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤/ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐄𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧): Let’s now explore the core teachings Hasan shares chapter by chapter:

𝟏. 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞: In a debate, the primary target isn’t the opponent—it’s the audience. Hasan argues that opponents are often lost causes, already entrenched in their positions, but the audience is where minds can actually be changed. The strategy begins by grabbing attention with a powerful hook—a startling statistic, a provocative question, or a compelling story. Next, the message should be tailored to resonate with the audience’s values and concerns. Consider Martin Luther King Jr., who didn’t direct his energy at converting segregationists but rather at appealing to America's broader conscience. Similarly, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s 7th March speech—এবারের সংগ্রাম আমাদের মুক্তির সংগ্রাম, এবারের সংগ্রাম স্বাধীনতার সংগ্রাম / The struggle this time is a struggle for emancipation, the struggle this time is a struggle for independence! —created emotional and moral pressure that ultimately moved millions.

𝟐. 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 (𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭) 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬: While a strong argument rests on a foundation of facts, emotion provides the engine for persuasion. Humans feel first and rationalize second. Hasan teaches that pure logic (logos) must be balanced with emotional connection (pathos) and personal credibility (ethos) to create truly persuasive arguments. Numbers matter, but vivid stories stick. Instead of simply stating, “17 children died,” we could say, “Seventeen families will never hear their children laugh again.” This emotional framing doesn’t replace facts—it makes them resonate on a deeper, more human level. For a real-life example, again from Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s 7th March speech: রক্ত যখন দিয়েছি, রক্ত আরো দেব, এ দেশের মানুষকে মুক্ত করে ছাড়ব ইনশাআল্লাহ / We spilled our blood… we are ready to shed more blood, the people of the country shall be freed, Inshallah! This illustrates how raw emotion can amplify the power of a message.

𝟑. 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭𝐬: However, emotion alone is not enough; it must be backed by irrefutable evidence. This chapter is a manifesto for meticulous preparation. "Showing your receipts" means having facts, data, and sources ready to deploy with precision and impact. The technique involves gathering proof in multiple forms: statistics, direct quotes, and especially our opponents’ own contradictory statements. What separates great debaters from good ones is timing—knowing when to reveal evidence for maximum effect rather than overwhelming the audience with everything at once. Often, the most devastating moment in a debate comes not from a new argument, but from exposing a piece of evidence at just the right moment—such as quoting an opponent’s own contradictory words, leaving them no room for rebuttal. Hasan frequently disarms politicians by using their own words against them, turning credibility into the most powerful weapon in the debate.

𝟒. 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥… 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐧: This chapter navigates the delicate balance between attacking an argument and attacking the arguer. The classic rule is to always "play the ball"—focus on the idea, not the person. But Hasan argues that when a person's credibility, hypocrisy, or bias directly undermines their argument, it becomes not only fair but necessary to "play the man." This isn't about name-calling; it's about legitimately questioning the sincerity of a claim when, for example, questioning an environmentalist funded by oil companies exposes credibility issues without being personal.

𝟓. 𝐋𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧, 𝐃𝐨𝐧'𝐭 (𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭) 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤: The insight here is that debate is as much about listening as talking. In reality, it is a dialogue where listening is the greatest strategic weapon. Active listening allows us to identify logical gaps, inconsistencies, and vulnerabilities in the opponent's case. The powerful "Repeat and Refute" technique involves carefully summarizing our opponent's point to demonstrate we understood it, then systematically dismantling it. This approach serves multiple purposes—it shows the audience we're engaging honestly; it prevents opponents from claiming we misunderstood them, and it gives us time to identify the weakest elements in their argument to launch a precise counterattack. We cannot simply refute an argument we haven't truly heard.

𝟔. 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐋𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡: Humor is seriously underrated as a rhetorical tool. A well-timed, witty remark can disarm an opponent and win over an audience, puncturing a weak argument more effectively than a dry fact. The key is to use humor that connects and charms, not cruelty that alienates. For example, if an opponent is being evasive, a light-hearted, "I appreciate the dance, but could we have a straight answer? The audience is getting dizzy," can highlight their evasion while making us seem relatable and in control. The best zingers sound spontaneous but are actually crafted in advance, deployed at precisely the right moment for maximum effect—a strategy Ronald Reagan used to neutralize age concerns with a clever, prepared line, winning laughs and favor.

𝟕. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: Human psychology naturally gravitates toward information presented in groups of three, making this one of rhetoric's most fundamental patterns. The teaching shows how three-part structures create satisfying rhythm and memorable impact—from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to "government of the people, by the people, for the people." The practical application involves organizing our main arguments, supporting examples, and key phrases around this magical number. When structuring arguments, think "unjust, impractical, and unconstitutional". Structuring the key points in trios creates a beat that sticks in the audience's mind long after the debate is over.

𝟖. 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬: This chapter teaches the art of using opponents' momentum against them, just like the martial art that inspired its name. The core techniques include strategic concession—agreeing with minor points to appear reasonable before launching major counter-attacks—and reframing debates onto more favorable ground. When someone calls us "too passionate," the judo response flips it: "Yes, because these issues are too important for indifference." The approach requires recognizing that direct confrontation isn't always the most effective strategy.

𝟗. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐙𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫: A zinger is a sharp, concise, and pre-prepared one-liner designed to deliver a knockout blow. The teaching emphasizes that effective zingers aren't just witty comebacks—they're substantive arguments compressed into memorable, quotable form. The art lies in its timing and relevance. The technique requires extensive preparation, as the best zingers are usually written in advance rather than improvised, then deployed when the perfect opportunity arises. A famous example, like Lloyd Bentsen's "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy," works because it crystallizes a complex critique of experience and character into a single, devastating moment. However, Hasan warns against overuse—too many attempted zingers make a debater appear unserious rather than clever.

𝟏𝟎. 𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐛𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐬: Strategic questioning can force opponents into logical contradictions, creating traps they walk into themselves. The method involves asking seemingly innocent questions that establish positions the opponents can't maintain consistently. For example, getting someone to agree that "all citizens deserve equal treatment" sets up a devastating follow-up when they defend a discriminatory policy. The teaching emphasizes thinking several moves ahead, like chess, anticipating how opponents will respond and preparing the next question that tightens the logical trap.

𝟏𝟏. 𝐁𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐆𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐩: Named after a debater who used the tactic, a "Gish Gallop" involves overwhelming opponents with a rapid-fire series of weak arguments, half-truths and lies—represents one of debate's most dishonest tactics. Rather than trying to address every point (which is impossible and plays into the galloper's hands), the defense involves calling out the technique itself while focusing laser-like attention on the weakest central claim. The teaching shows how to respond: "My opponent just threw out a dozen different claims in thirty seconds—a classic attempt to overwhelm rather than persuade. Let me focus on the biggest falsehood..." This approach exposes the tactic to the audience. Donald Trump is a master of this technique.

[𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝟎𝟏]

[S.Ach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Win every argument. And, lose all your friends.

Why do we argue?
I am not talking about professional debaters. And, I am not talking about arguments that we have with your spouses or friends on which TV show to watch or who didn't put the toilet seat cover down.
I am talking about the lay people like us - those normally don't participate in televised debates.
And yes, I am talking about topic based arguments, that we normally have over a beer or coffee - whether Socialism is better than Capitalism? Is religion good for people? Is democracy worse than dictatorship? Is corporal punishment good for kids? What is better - Left or Right? etc etc.
Do we really think there will be a winning side in these arguments? With our limited knowledge, can we solve the perennial question of whether God exist or not? Hell, No.
Then, why do we argue? To score a point? To show that others are wrong and we are right? To show off our ability to memorize facts? To appear smart in front of others?
Well, I can't deny that some debaters have these objectives.
But for me, there are two objectives - A - to understand the viewpoints that are different from mine. And B - To refine my own thought processes. Winning an argument is the least of the priority.

In this book, Mehdi Hasan, a professional debater and TV interviewer, lays down the tricks he employs to win an argument in front of an audience.
I have liked Mehdi in many of his arguments, despite his gotcha-kind-of-questioning and arrogant demeanor, solely because the amount of preparation and homework he appears to have done before a debate or interview. In this book, there are many tips I liked and I am going to use in my next debates or public speeches. Like the rule of 3 or having a strong opening or having a rehearsed preparation, etc. The book is very simple to go through, though appear little repetitive and self-congratulatory at times. The examples are contemporary.

There is a thin line between confidence and arrogance. Humility, even a feigned one, is a big differentiator.
I agree that some of the tricks that Mehdi suggested in the book could help you to win an argument. But, I am pretty sure, despite your win you would stop being in the good books of the person you are arguing with.
Ad hominem is a No (if you don't like the person, why to argue with him/her?). Whataboutery is a No. Gotcha moments are best avoided. Argue, but don't confront.

Argue to learn. Not win.

[Paul Gagne · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75

[Meg · Rating 1 out of 5]

I will preface this by saying that I listened to the audiobook and the physical book may bring about a different response.

I found this quite lackluster - it was all over the place. I felt bored in many spaces. I did find that the concept of “connecting with the audience” to be the only helpful tidbit, but I already knew that from prior life experience.

It could be helpful for those who struggle more with commanding a room or feel uneasy with speaking up within a group. For me - it wasn’t a winner, but based on the reviews, I am an outlier so try it out and make your own conclusions.

[Jenna Gilbreath · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hard DNFef at 35%.

This book is great if you are looking for effective ways to verbally shove people in a corner and win arguments at all costs. Highly recommend if you are into authors that come across as very into themselves and belittle those who think differently than themselves.

I picked up this book, because I’m interested in being a better public speaker (communicator), not a better public aggressor. It’s on me, though. I should have known by the title. I don’t care to win every argument.

Alternate Suggested Title: How to Be a Real Peach at Parties

[Martin Velinský · Rating 1 out of 5]

I never believed there are bad books. Until I read Hasan

50% of this book is author self promoting himself, oh how greatly he argued against random republicans. 30% is him revealing the ugly tactics left has to resort to use when truth is not on their side. 20% is actual information, out of which 0 is original. You're much better reading the original Greek philosophers than this... I don't even know what this is. Mostly ideological propaganda.