Taking the Wind Out of Your Opponent's Sail

As I was reading my Alexander Hamilton biography, I came across a section that was very enlightening in regards to debating and speechmaking in general, and I thought it would be a good lesson on how to win arguments through civilized discourse. I know that attorneys use this one particular method on occasion, but I think that most people forget it when they're arguing for something they want.

Hamilton was part of the Federalist contingent in the New York State debate regarding the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, he was the main speaker, and he would speak many times during that two-week session. His back was against the wall, and he was definitely in the minority with the anti-Federalists Clintonians destined to win. Were it not for Hamilton's brilliance as an orator, New York would have been one of three states that would not join the new Republic. And as one of the largest states in the colonies at the time, it would have caused a major problem for the new federal government.

Knowing this, Hamilton's first speech was going to have to be his best. He knew the anti-Federalists had powerful arguments against him and the proposed Constitution, and he wanted to make sure that he took all of their authority and power away on his own terms rather than let the undecided delegates hear it from the Clintonian speakers. So, in a moment of brilliance, instead of speaking about his position and the Federalist cause up front, he dedicated his speech to outlining his opponent's arguments and criticisms, one by one, and explaining them in detail. He gave them credit where credit was due, and he refrained from attacking any of their points. He spoke as if he were on their side, and he brought out their most potent defense for their position. In doing so, he took the wind out of their sail. When they came to the podium, they would not be able to offer anything new to the discussion. He had done it for them. On the other hand, when Hamilton returned to speak during the course of the two-week debate, he would, point-by-point, examine their positions, compare them to the proposed Constitution and tear their arguments down. In essence, he put them in a very awkward position and rendered them ineffective for 13 of the 14 days of debate.

His plan was successful, and the New York delegates voted for ratification of the Constitution. People at that convention noted that it was Hamilton and his oratorical skills that won them over. It was an amazing rhetorical feat. Unfortunately, this moment has been left out of most history books.

What we can do, though, is take this example and apply it to our lives. We seem to have lost the ability to make these kinds of arguments. I believe it's because we are in such a hurry to tell our point of view and talk about ourselves that we do not want to take time to lay out our opponent's argument first. In addition, for some reason, we fear telling the other side's story thinking that it will circumvent our own argument. This is simply not true. If we take the time to analyze our opponent before we speak and understand their story, we can disarm them before they have a chance to speak. It really is genius. And it is necessary. We must realize that our opponents do have valid points that they believe in, and dismissing those arguments while focusing on our own leaves half of our ammunition unused. More detrimentally to our cause, waiting to address their arguments after they make them puts us on the defensive, and a response to a statement is never better than making an argument on our own terms. Never!

So, where can we use this? Anywhere! Attorneys can use this when speaking to a jury. Salespeople can use this technique when presenting their product to a customer. Politicians can use this when debating their opponents. Business leaders can use this when trying to propose an idea. And, yes, married couples can use this when making decisions. It can be used anytime you are trying to get your ideas accepted when opposing another set of core values.

The key to disarming your opponent is the balanced use of tact and diplomacy. Like Hamilton, you don't want to start off by bad-mouthing your opponent or your opponent's ideas. For example, in a sales presentation, if you do that, you will lose the sale because customers do not like you bad-mouthing the competition. It's much easier to do in a speech because you have your audience's undivided attention. In a sales presentation, it's more about weaving your opponent's argument softly into your presentation. However, it must be there nonetheless. In the future, I will present this rhetorical method dedicated for sales presentations. It is potent and will set you apart from the competition.

Try it the next time you have to win over support for something. Do the research on your opponent and then spend the first few minutes of your speech listing their arguments first. Then, spend the rest of your speech taking a comparison-contrast between your ideas and those of your opponent. I guarantee, if you do that, you have increased your odds of winning by at least 50% because your opponent will have to resort to answering your intellectual argument rather than giving his argument.