The Book "Win Every Argument" by Mehdi Hasan is good, but I have problems with things it says

The book is great as an advice to me. It captures the essence of debating. It explains some of the best debating techniques.

It talks about the power of Rule of Three

(Conclusion + Three reasons to support it)

as the ideal writing style for debates and for arguments.

It talks about the power of Gish Gallop, which is a technique I personally like.

It talks about importance of knowing arguments on both sides of the debate.

It talks about researching both sides, learning both sides and learning about your opponent.

It talks about catching your opponent in his own words.

It talks about setting traps, which are arguments that seem weak but are actually impossible to refute, and when your opponent tries to refute, you already have a ready counter.

It talks about preemptive arguments, where you refute arguments of your opponents before he even makes them.

However, there are moral issues with the book.

The book actually encourages ad hominem.

The book is not focused on debating to reach the truth, but debating by manipulating audience, telling them what they want to hear, using dishonest debating tactics such as focusing on worst point rebuttal as an attempt to confuse the audience to make it wrongly believe that if person makes one mistake in debate, then he is wrong about everything else too.

The book actually says that you should focus on emotions rather than logic when debating. It literally says that logic alone is boring and that people dont like it.

It says that you should use stories in debates to try to play to emotions, as opposed to using pure facts.

It encourages an attack on person's character and his past mistakes.

I am not really sure what to think of this book. Sure, its a fun read. I just wonder how many people will abuse it to abuse others and twist the truth.

Unfortunately, many people are not logically or rationally guided to make decisions. Instead, they allow themselves to make judgements based on their momentary emotions. This is certainly not an effective strategy to make desicions. Nonetheless, the book seems to exploit that, indicating the book is geared to winning arguments for the masses and not for winning rational dialogue because in a one-on-one discussion the individual founded upon rationality wouldn't be affected by this tactic.

In a debate of logical and rational minded intellectuals, this tactic would be hardly useful and easily identifiably as a childish attempt to win. No one would consider the validity of the idea based on the credibility of the person's credentials but rather take the value of the words for their own merit. Stories are an effective way to express ideas they are also an effective way to express emotions, and this could be seen as an attempt to play on emotions but for a small group of rational minded individuals it would merely convey the point of the story and would not have much of an emotional overcoming effect. I think it is essential to focus on the worst point in a rebuttal, and I believe many people would agree with me. I am often self-critical and examine my own decisions and essentially try to dismount them and I focus on their weakest points. It is in this way that I am not only able to reform my idea to support and rigidify against such accusations, but I am also able to identify arguments that are incapable of withstanding the accusations and then form a new one that holds better than before. It is most certainly an important aspect of a debate to prioritize truth over winning, especially if the decision will be one that affects you. We live in a world that is not exactly as we wish it would be and therefore by playing on emotions and pretending as if the world was how we wish it would be and then we make decisions based on how the we wish the world would be we will not get the results that we wanted because we did not acknowledge the world for what it is.

Essentially, the book could be recognized as morally concerning as it tends to focus on winning as a primary objective over truth and understanding. This can be harmful to anyone involved in the decision as they will be affected by this false judgment. The book strategies would not be effective in a debate among a small group of intellectuals who are emotionally collected and rational minded. Instead, the book Is more focused on irrational and emotional individuals which would be the general populus, and in larger groups. When an individual is arguing a stance and in front of a large audience, they are more likely to be offended when a person is accusing their credibility and trying to dismount their idea at its weakest point these leads for a higher chance that the debate will become emotional and subject to being overcome by the tactics.

Well, according to the review, the book is intended for politicians and business workers, so I don't think these people want to get to the truth but to sell an idea, a product/service or whatever they offer, imho.

You might be refering to a scientific debate in which case I agree with all what you said. 

The worst point rebuttal in the book was supposed to be abused to manipulate the audience into thinking that if one opponent's argument is wrong, they are all wrong.

The worst point rebuttal in my opinion should not be used anyway.

Full rebuttal is not always possible. In that case, people should focus on best point rebuttal.

Worst point rebuttal in the book was used to ignore opponent's entire main case and attack almost irrelevant argument to make the opponent seem stupid about everything he says. It was supposed to convince the audience that the opponent is stupid and wrong about everything he says because he made one mistake.

Personally, I attack my own ideas from their weakest points with the intention of critiquing them or creating a new theory all together.

I believe what you're saying is in the context of the book it was meant to be used in a less rational manner.

I usually create new arguments from rebuttals. I challenge people to attack my ideas. When they do, it helps me create new arguments that I can use outside rebuttals.

I am curious. What do you think of the rule of the three?

Book says that perfect argument has 3 parts and conclusion.

For example, Conclusion + 3 reasons to support it.

I often have much more reasons to support a conclusion, but the book insists to use only 3 because the audience better accepts it.

I feel like it ruins the comparison of cases.

I personally view the book as a means of winning an argument not necessarily having the best future for oneself or others. It is because of this; I view the book as a way for a child to have a tantrum and if other children join to stomp their feet they will win together. The unfortunate part is that it may work for others who are speaking to emotionally driven audiences, which is a decent part of the populus. I believe that if someone used the steps and instructions provided in this book, I would have no problem winning an argument against them assuming that my argument was correct.

I believe that the true intention is not to win a debate but rather to navigate the world towards a better future. I also believe that by winning a debate you are not necessarily leading yourself to a better future especially if you plan on implementing your decision from the debate and if the decision affects you. If a person has concluded a false reality, and then implemented it and the decision affects them, I believe this will negatively affect their future. This is why I viewed the book as not only impractical but irrational, illogical, and priority flawed.

In essence, I don't believe this book is beneficial to anyone's life, and it may lead to negative consequences that many who share this emotionally driven mentality will fail to consider.