How to Argue and Win Every Time

The point of the book is not to persuade you to adopt his point of view, but to adopt your own. It's a lot about freedom of expression, but not his, but freedom for those who don't stand up for what they believe in, even when they are right. I've owned the cassette version for several years and wouldn't think of reading the book when I can hear his argument on tape. I wish I could describe his style. The title is grandiose --and good marketing. I imagine he is a bit grandiose and more than a little self-promoting. But he's got some good ideas to sell, so I don't begrudge the marketing. I read this shortly before winning one of the most important arguments in my life, so it may have been helpful exactly when I needed help. Spence's style of argument borrows from his life. You get a lot of what you'd expect from a lawyer, excerpts from his trials and a brief look at the profession of law. But the courtroom is just a metaphor for a bigger picture. I think the bigger picture is listening to him give advice on standing up for the truth and not flinching when someone tries to cut away at it. I enjoyed his method: imagining mental locks which he matches with verbal keys. He also digs into prejuidice, which seemed like a side trip, but it made sense when he got done. He's got some locks or closed doors of his own, he admits, naming bankers as one group who could just as well stay out on the golf course and not come back. That part made me laugh. How would he know that much about bankers? So I imagined him out on the golf course, with knickers to match his trademark rawhide jacket -- listening in on the conversations. Don't wait for the movie. There might never be one. But you are ready for equal doses of entertainment and insight, get the tape.

When I was in High School, I was a debater. I picked up this book and it became the basis for how I formulated most of my arguments throughout my debate career, into college, and beyond. Gerry Spence never lost a case. Why? Was he better prepared? Did he look or sound better? I think it boiled down to know what he wanted the outcome to be; tell the jury what he expected them to decide; and giving them all the reasons to choose the outcome he had already asked for. This book delves into all aspects of your work and private life. The key takeaway is being clear about your objectives and articulating them in a way that allows others to want those outcomes to become a reality. How to Argue and When Every Time is a wonderful guide to being a better communicator. I have bought several copies and I continue to give to friends and employees who struggle to be understood. Great read!

Given as a gift to a 1st year law student. Gerry Spence makes some interesting points when arguing a position. Taking his points and examples may not help you to win "every time", but you will be better prepared in planning your position to argue and defend. Very helpful for those in law school and in the legal profession. Methods can also be used when winning that argument with your Spouse!!!

This book is not about how to set up a winning argument providing the best evidence and the best logical case. It is about getting what you want as you communicate with others. People are emotional beings that focus not just on weighing the presented evidence. People have self interests, they are prejudiced, there are emotions and desires, group associations, and then there’s body language, and to get what you want they have to like you, etc. When you argue a case in court, or at home or at work, or to any group of people, you have to consider all of that. Very briefly; you have to prepare, you have to listen to the other, you have to understand the other, find common ground, and you have to be credible. Therefore you should not avoid emotions and your argument should be personal, and you must always be truthful. Our argument cannot be perceived as a threat or we will never be heard, and assault is not argument. He discusses how to deal with prejudice and hostility and tells us that sometimes losing is winning and sometimes an argument shouldn’t be made at all. He also mentions that telling personal stories is a good way of getting people to see things your way. In addition to advice and guidelines there’s also quite a bit of wisdom and personal opinions, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t agree with. One thing I object to is that he sometimes overextends his perspective. For example, there are arguments, or communications, which should avoid emotions and for which the people involved and even their perceived credibility should not matter. I am talking about peer review in natural science and mathematical discourse, which I see as the best path towards “truth”. In that case only the evidence matter and the data and mathematical derivations speak for itself. However, that is outside of his expertise, like so much else that is outside of his expertise. That’s why I titled my review “A Lawyer’s Perspective”. That does not mean it is not a good book. The book is filled with useful insights and I learned a lot from the book. One of the things I learned from this book is that if I know a lot about a subject and I am arguing with someone who’s very misinformed but stubborn I must resist the temptation to be patronizing, or to crush them. My goal should be to inform them, not to make them hate me. That was just one of many examples of what I’ve learned reading this book. I highly recommend this book.

I never have been a fan of defense attorneys. I dislike the long-haired, showy trademark look of some defense attorneys. I am not fond of "tree-huggers" who take up my time with their passion for causes that don't directly affect me in my daily trials and tribulations. Then, I read this book, introduced as a "critical, must-read" by a winning lawyer when I attended a Special Needs Education Law seminar put on by Pete Wright. Mr. Spence writes eloquently. He presents his thoughts so colorfully the reader doesn't even realize he or she is learning until thinking about it afterward. I crammed the book over a weekend in preparation for an official meeting Monday morning where I expected I'd have to negotiate and argue. I used a key lesson from Gerry {I can hear him saying don't call me Mr. Spence please} and I didn't have to argue, although I was prepared. I will be re-reading this book, probably several times, because it is so entertaining and instructional. And, I'm going to name that huge old Magnolia tree growing outside of my house. She is beautiful.

This is a book on arguing written by a lawyer, but it is sooo much more than that. It is a book on deciding on the outcome you want, and being enlightened, loving, human and decent in your pursuit of that goal. Having gotten divorced in a legal system where honesty was a losing strategy, I loved seeing that the strategies in this book (written in 1986) might have once worked in a better justice system of a different time. However, this is a book that is almost about enlightenment - about arguing to express love, about arguing to get an outcome that brings you closer to a party rather than increasing distance, about arguing to win something decent. I wish this was required reading for all lawyers and judges, and for all parties to a lawsuit, to elevate the level of the discussion and to bring the focus back on what really is desired, rather than the common course of "the lawyers made $300k and no real results got achieved" that is often the outcome of lawyer brokered contentiousness.

First, the good. In How To Argue, Spence makes the case that argument is an art that anyone can learn. Thus, anyone can deliver a winning argument. But how? That is where the “magic” of argument lies and the author sets out to teach that magic in this book. The central premise is that many people don’t know how to argue because they affix certain “locks” to themselves. These locks imprison arguments, bar you from assuming a successful stance or adopting a winning method. The book thus moves forward detailing the locks (e.g., “I’m afraid to argue.”) and then explaining the keys (e.g., “Fear is our ally”). The first part of the book details what many writers (in the author’s opinion) of how-to books ignore: you, the person who is arguing. As the saying goes, you can’t put a thousand-dollar saddle (i.e., technique) on a ten-dollar horse, so successful argumentation begins with who you are (e.g., prejudices, credibility, listening). The second part details the structure, preparation, technique and art of the winning argument. The third part helps you to understand how to argue with loved ones, your children, in the workplace and with your boss. In my opinion, the most valuable benefit I derived from this book is that it changed how I think about arguing. Listening is actually the most essential skill that makes up the art of argument and “winning” an argument in some cases is the best way to lose, especially when it comes to engaging with loved ones. To “win” sometimes you have to empower the other to reject you; that’s when all the barriers begin crumbling. Next, the bad. I think this book contains too much philosophizing and exhortation, too much psychology and storytelling. If you’re a “get-to-the-point" reader like me, you will undoubtedly get frustrated navigating through lots of fluff before you get to the nuggets of wisdom. Yet, the most repulsive parts of the book are found when the author props himself on a high horse and begins to judge God and religion in general. He goes so far to accuse the God of the Bible of playing “dirty tricks” on people and advising readers that they have a duty to test God. When the author speaks of the divine in such a manner, he only ends up demonstrating his own ignorance. I wonder if the author read his own book and realizes his argument is compromised when he reveals his divine prejudice and consequently hurts his credibility. In the end, this is a book that will equip you with some practical skills so that you can achieve what you want in life. Just be prepared to be taken on some very unpleasant detours along the way.

Using the paradigms in this book, I have conquered many opponents I was reluctant to deal with before due to (mostly) fear. The author has a non-standard approach to creating argumentative energy seemingly out of nothing. If you have the patience to wade through his tree-hugging stuff you will become empowered just by reading some paragraphs about the human weaknesses. If you don't understand what tree-hugging means, it may also be the key to your inability to win some arguments before and is key to unlocking your potential. Once we understand how to handle our weaknesses and use the power of higher moral ground, truth and integrity we become invincible. Btw, if you simply want to learn about logical fallacies - get a school book. Simply knowing the logical fallacies didn't help him much in the court cases he tried. He is just cynical enough to convey the reality of life but is not fixated on it while providing all the tools to prepare you for the B.S. that gets thrown at you every day. There's another book I know of that uses eastern philosophy and some martial arts techniques in dealing with problems - "Aikido in Everyday Life: Giving in to Get Your Way" by Terry Dobson and Victor Miller. In some ways the books are identical.