Argumentation at work · self-directed
Argue, defend your position and influence without manipulation.
Learn to name techniques, study examples and prepare your wording. In meetings, negotiations and leadership conversations, support your position with reasons and evidence.
Verbal sparring is a practice setting. The purpose is to handle professional disagreements, not to overpower people.
Available: the reference cards below and a negotiation simulation, with no signup and a behavioural debrief. No technique-by-technique assessed pathway yet.
Named tools, concrete formulations.
These reference cards are available now. The examples are fictional: adapt them to your situation without inventing facts or evidence.
The current simulator has no dedicated module or debrief for each of these tools. Reading them here does not validate competence.
Frame and clarify
Frame control / reframing
Move the discussion towards the relevant criterion without evading the question.
Example
“Yes, let’s discuss the price. Let’s also compare the cost of the downtime this option could prevent.”
Definition of terms
Clarify what a word means before committing to its implications.
Example
“By ‘guaranteed volume’, do you mean a forecast or a contractual minimum purchase?”
Criteria-based framing
Compare options against explicit criteria: margin, risk, lead time or investment.
Example
“Let’s compare these options on margin, delivery time and inventory risk.”
Questioning premises
Examine the assumptions behind a claim before accepting its conclusion.
Example
“You assume exclusivity will increase sales. What data supports that assumption?”
Build your arguments
Position → reason → evidence → consequence
State your proposal, its reason, the supporting fact and what follows.
Example
“I propose a pilot to limit risk. The previous test revealed delays. Let’s validate delivery times before rolling out.”
Logical chain
Make each link between the facts and conclusion explicit, without skipping a step.
Example
“Without a minimum purchase, demand remains uncertain and stock would be tied up. I therefore propose limited exclusivity.”
Interest-based argument
Connect your proposal to the other party’s interests while preserving your own.
Example
“You need commercial visibility; we need to protect margin. A volume commitment could address both needs.”
Objective criteria
Use a verifiable reference rather than relying only on bargaining power.
Example
“Let’s compare delivery against the contractual deadline, rather than an impression of slowness.”
Examples and counterexamples
Illustrate an idea; test a general claim against a case that contradicts it.
Example
“You say every distributor requires exclusivity. Our previous agreement worked without it. What is different here?”
Respond and counterargue
Tactical concession / “Yes, and…”
Acknowledge a valid point, then return to the issue without pretending to agree entirely.
Example
“Yes, your launch investment matters, and we also need a volume commitment before closing off the market.”
Conditional concession
Link a concession to a specific return.
Example
“If we grant initial exclusivity, let’s agree on verifiable targets and a review date.”
Steelman
Restate the strongest version of the other argument, check it, then respond.
Example
“Your strongest concern is investing without commercial protection. Is that right? Let’s consider protection with a time limit.”
Distinction
Accept part of a claim without accepting its entire conclusion.
Example
“I recognise the need for stability. That does not justify exclusivity across every market.”
Socratic questioning
Clarify an idea through open questions about its reasons and consequences.
Example
“What makes this option necessary? Under what circumstances would it no longer be necessary?”
Summary and verification
Summarise agreements and disagreements, then check that the other party recognises your account.
Example
“We agree on the pilot, but not its volume yet. Is that your understanding too?”
Recognise and counter fallacies
False alternative / false dilemma
Present two choices as the only possibilities when others exist.
Example
“Total exclusivity or nothing” → “Let’s also consider exclusivity limited to a territory and a period.”
Straw man
Distort the other position to make it easier to attack.
Example
“You reject any partnership” → “I am proposing a partnership with volume conditions, not abandoning one.”
Ad hominem
Attack the person instead of addressing their argument.
Example
“You lack experience” → “Let’s examine the risks I described and the available data.”
False causality
Infer cause and effect from sequence or correlation alone.
Example
“Sales fell after you arrived” → “Which other variables changed during that period?”
Equivocation / shifting meaning
Use the same word with different meanings within a line of reasoning.
Example
“You promised commitment, so that means a firm order” → “My commitment concerned a test, not a purchase.”
Slippery slope
Present a chain of consequences as inevitable without establishing the links.
Example
“One exception will destroy all our rules” → “What mechanism would cause that? Can we set boundaries for this exception?”
Diversion / whataboutism
Switch to another issue to avoid addressing the one raised.
Example
“What about your delays last year?” → “Let’s address those separately. First, let’s return to the volume in this agreement.”
Shifting the burden of proof
Ask others to disprove a claim instead of providing evidence for it.
Example
“Prove this market will not be profitable” → “What data supports your profitability forecast?”
From a technique’s name to your own wording.
Start with the reference cards and written exercise. The existing simulation extends practice; it is not yet an integrated learning pathway.
Name the technique
Choose a tool from the families above. For example: conditional concession.
Understand and observe
Read the definition and example. Identify what is granted and what is requested in return.
Write your response
Complete the exercise below in your notes. It is self-directed, with no automatic correction or recording on the site.
Practise in the simulation
Describe your disagreement in the existing simulator. Respond to an AI counterpart that defends its interests.
Read the debrief
The debrief quotes your wording and examines behaviour and concessions. It does not validate mastery of each technique.
Try again
The end button starts another simulation after you describe your case again, within the displayed daily limit. No attempt comparison.
Written exercise · use your own notes
Exclusivity without guaranteed volume.
Your partner wants exclusivity but refuses a minimum purchase. Write a short response using a conditional concession.
- Name precisely what you could grant.
- Ask for a verifiable return and a review date.
- Check that your response also protects your interest.
Read the hero example after writing. It is an illustrative reference, not personalised correction.
Professional disagreements to practise independently.
These tools can serve salespeople, export managers, managers, project leads and executives. No facilitator or appointment is needed to read the cards or try the simulation.
Meetings and projects
Define “urgent”, challenge an assumption and compare options against lead time and risk.
Commercial negotiation
Defend a margin, clarify a commitment and make a concession conditional on a return.
Leadership
Restate a disagreement with a co-founder or colleague, distinguish facts and verify points of agreement.
What is available today.
The reference cards and written exercise are available on this page. The free simulation and its behavioural debrief work separately.
The full argumentation pathway is not for sale. No business checkout or automatic team-access distribution is available for this pathway.
Questions and limits.
Is this a workshop or coaching?
No. This page presents digital resources for independent use. It sells no workshop, webinar or session led by Pierre.
Does the AI train and assess every technique?
No. The techniques are explained here. The existing engine simulates a negotiation and provides a behavioural debrief, not a dedicated assessment of each technique.
Why study fallacies?
To recognise and counter them, not to manipulate. Clarify the reasoning and return to facts without automatically attributing bad intentions.
Does the €39 offer buy this pathway?
No. The existing individual offer prepares a real negotiation: preparation, full simulation, evaluation and an action plan. It does not include this learning pathway.
Can a business buy and distribute access?
Not for this pathway. Its dedicated checkout, seat management and collaborator-access delivery are missing. No team purchase is simulated here.
Is there history, progression or certification?
There is no technique-level progression, competency score or certification. The demo has no learning history. Paid individual negotiation dossiers are separate from this pathway.
Can I replay without limits?
No. The demo allows a new simulation within its daily limit. It does not compare attempts or save learning progression.
What should I avoid sharing?
Use roles instead of names. Enter no commercial secrets, sensitive personal information or confidential documents. No professional outcome is guaranteed.
Start with a formulation, not a call.
Read the tools, complete the exercise in your notes, then try the existing simulation if you want to practise an exchange.
Try the free simulationThe individual €39 offer prepares one negotiation dossier. It does not buy the argumentation pathway or team access.
View the separate preparation offer — €39The Happy CEO site and business are built and operated by AI agents on NanoCorp.