Win Every Argument by Mehdi Hasan - Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up: 

‘Arguments are everywhere—and everyone wants to win. In fact, every single person on the face of the planet has, at some point in their lives, tried to win an argument.

Whether it is in the comments section on Facebook, or in the marble hallways of Congress, or at the Thanksgiving dinner table. We cannot escape the human urge, need, and desire to argue.

Mehdi Hasan believes that anyone can win an argument. As a journalist, anchor, and interviewer who has clashed with politicians, generals, spies, and celebrities from across the world, Hasan will reveal his tricks of the trade—16 different ways to get the upper hand in a debate, from the Rule of 3 to Judo Moves.

The book will also be chock-full of vivid examples and behind-the-scenes anecdotes from Hasan’s own debates, which have ranged from the Oxford Union in England to Kiev in Ukraine, as well as from U.S. presidential debates and scenes from movies and TV shows like Star Trek and A Few Good Men. Win Every Argument will unpack words of wisdom from everyone from the ancient philosopher Aristotle to the WWE wrestler Ronda Rousey.'

Whether you are a student making a presentation or a lawyer trying to convince the court, this book will teach you how to sharpen your speaking skills to make the winning case.’ 

Win Every Argument is a book written by Mehdi Hasan, a journalist known for his combative interviews and debates. In this book, he tries to reveal the secrets of his trade - as to how to be an effective debater and win arguments on contentious topics.  

The book his split into various chapters, explaining various parts of an argument - how it has been important since time immemorial (with anecdotes from Greek and Roman times), the importance of understanding the audience, anticipating the arguments of the opponent in advance and the importance of "effective storytelling". The author cites various examples from his own journalistic career with prominent media organisations on how he used these techniques effectively, against prominent politicians and ideologues.  

The book is useful in certain limited contexts - especially in public speaking, when there is an audience involved, or for political discussions. The techniques that he mentions may not help winning an argument with your friend or your partner (some techniques such as anticipating the other person's arguments may be useful). The author also took the approach of winning the argument at all costs, challenging many traditional views on debates, wherein the author justifies the use of ad hominem attacks; and illustrates how, when used correctly, it could be effective. Using appropriate "quotes" depending on the audience is also an advice that I found very useful, as many fall into the trap of quoting their favourite politician / writer / philosopher and when the listener has / is likely to have a poor opinion on that person; and thus using one’s favourite quote may not be persuasive and could even be detrimental. 

I must disclose something about myself here, I have followed the works of the author almost since the beginning of their career in late 2000s (ever since I was a teenager) and have admired his debating techniques. I am also largely aligned with his politics given I identify myself with the left. So, this was a book that I wanted to like.  

Having said that, I was disappointed with the book. I was surprised to the extent to which the author was conceited, absolutely convinced that he nailed it in every argument that he had been in. A part of the problem is specific to me or anyone else who has been following his works regularly - a lot of debating points / arguments that he cites as examples are those that we have already seen on TV / YouTube and thus, felt repetitive. I would reiterate on the point of him being conceited as a couple of arguments that he cites in the book as to how he "absolutely won the audience" were arguments that I found were weak when I watched his show in the past and thus, was surprised to know that he was convinced of their merits. And I am coming as someone who agrees with his position on most of the contentious subjects and if that is the impact he has on me, I wonder what would have been the impact on those who completely disagree with him.  

An example for the above paragraph would be his Oxford Union speech where he passionately defended Islam, which I felt was a very good speech, and was convincing (personally, I am an atheist, so he was not preaching to the choir in my case). However, what surprised me was that the "best point" from the speech that he recalls is how he countered his opponent over the enormous gap in time over founding of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the advent of Islam - where I felt the author was pedantic and was a cheap debating point that added no value to the argument. This is one prominent example that I am citing in the review but there were several more.  

On the whole, I would say that this is a decent book as a starter for someone who is not used to political debates / public speaking. However, barring a few, I did not have a lot of takeaways from this book and being a non-fiction book, I expected a lot to learn from this book and that was missing here. It is unfortunate that I did not like this book and it certainly does not help much with winning arguments. I award this book with a rating of four on ten.  

Rating - 4/10 

Have a nice day

Anirudh