As I was writing my book, I realized I needed to brush up on my arguing knowledge; I needed to know how my character could win his arguments (or lose them, because even fictional people need a kick in the ego). So I did some research, and here’s what I found:

Aristotle was a great arguer. He knew rhetorical tactics like the back of his Parthenon. He used three methods to conquer crowds and singular opponents: Pathos, Logos, and Ethos.

Pathos is an appeal to emotion. In other words, you’re sticking a dagger right in the feelies. If you’re arguing for universal education, invoke images of their baby growing up uneducated and unable to find jobs, dragging down the city streets begging for pennies in some language he learned from the wolves. But be careful not to take it too far, like that example I just used.

Which brings us to Logos. Now what do you think that appeals to? Not Legos, you infant. LOGIC. This is where solid evidence comes in. Shoot out facts your opponent cannot argue with—for instance, that 250 million children worldwide don’t have the ability to read or do basic maths, according to UNICEF (2012). But more than just being a walking encyclopedia, you need to present ways in which your argument can be implemented. For example, replacing all wild and domestic animals with robotic ones that growl out lessons as soon as any child comes near. Or something.

Finally, there’s dandy little Ethos. Ethos is when you sell yourself. Use your resume and CV as credentials for your argument. If you’re a two-time Pulitzer Prize winning author who teaches English at Harvard, chances are people will agree with you more often. You need to be qualified to talk about a subject. If you’re Donald Trump, you’re not qualified to argue about immigration. If you’re a minister of foreign affairs, you might be.

Now, all of this is great. But they’re just the Ionian pillars of arguing. You need to also think about the psychology of your opponent.

In a 2003 study, researchers found that holding eye contact with your opponent decreases their likelihood to agree with you. But why?!?! Isn’t that the opposite of what’s supposed to happen?

No. While eye contact asserts dominance, it won’t intimidate your opponent into believing you. You’re looking for cooperation, so keep your eyes focused on other things, without appearing weak or uncertain.

Also, because people like other people who act and think like themselves, you can weasel your way into your opponent’s comfort zone by MIRRORING EVERYTHING THEY DO WITH THEIR BODY AND EVEN THE TONE OF THEIR VOICE LIKE THE LITTLE CREEPER YOU ARE. You may have been advised to do this during interviews—well, it’s the same with arguing. The more familiar you seem to your opponent, the fewer walls they’ll put up against you.

And my final advice is this: present the counter-argument before your opponent can do it. Because you’ve done your research and actually know what you’re talking about, you also should know both sides of the story and be able to prove why the wrong side is wrong. Be your own devil’s advocate. That will throw off your opponent for sure.

Happy arguing (for real or fictitiously)!