View in browser
One thing that frustrates me -- deeply -- is when the side with the worse argument nevertheless wins a debate.

I've seen it happen quite a bit. In 2018 I took daughter Regina, then 15, with me to a Soho Forum debate on a particular kind of originalism: whether the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original meaning of the document as conveyed by the words of the text.

(Let's leave aside that genuine originalism involves original intent, not just the words in isolation, but even this version of the argument sure beats the progressive "we'll interpret it so it lets us do what we want, and we'll keep you posted on its changing meaning every day" argument.)

The debate was between Georgetown University Law Center's Randy Barnett, whom I don't agree with entirely but who gets a lot right, and Cornell Law School's Michael Dorf, who doesn't.

Even though Barnett doesn't represent my precise position, I was rooting for him. Unfortunately, he didn't look impressive. His arguments weren't organized and compelling. He didn't come across as someone in command of the room.

Unfortunately, Michael Dorf did. Charming, funny, articulate, and somehow more convincing, even though he was totally wrong.

So the audience voted, and even in a libertarian setting, Dorf was declared the winner.

History is full of perfectly correct people who lost to worse ideas that were simply delivered better. You know that's true. You've seen it. And you've probably felt it, too: you have something worth saying and it isn't landing.

This is not primarily about winning debates per se. Most people never participate in a formal debate, and don't need debate training.

I'm speaking of a larger issue, that applies to huge numbers of people. Successful people have usually mastered every skill except this one: they can build the company, but they freeze when asked to explain it to 200 people. There is a quiet humiliation in being the smartest, most accomplished person in the room, and the least able to show it. 

I'm talking about (to name only a handful of examples):
  • The surgeon who can't get the hospital board to fund the thing that would save lives, because the finance people out-talked him.
  • The founder whose product is genuinely better but keeps losing deals to a rival with a slicker pitch.
  • The person raising money for a venture who has the numbers but can't make the room feel the opportunity.
  • The researcher sitting on important work that never gets attention because the paper is impenetrable and the talk is worse.
  • The person with unpopular-but-correct views who gets dismissed not because the argument is weak but because the delivery is.
  • The author with a finished book and no ability to talk about it, watching lesser books outsell it on the strength of the author's charisma.
  • The financial advisor whose advice is sound but who can't get clients to actually act on it.
  • The expert consultant who loses the pitch to someone half as competent but twice as clear.
I've spent 30 years learning to make ideas land, in front of audiences both hostile and friendly. (Many people reading this right now first came across me via a YouTube video of one of my speeches.) Next week in a free presentation I'm going to show you how I do it, with examples drawn from my own speeches.

This is an asset that Warren Buffett (whose father, by the way, Congressman Howard Buffett, was an early Murray Rothbard fan) says will last you 50 or 60 years -- and that if you don't have it, you'd better believe that lack will follow you for 50 or 60 years.

I'm only doing this live, no recording, so click here to reserve your spot and let's make you someone who commands a room (and enjoys all the benefits that come with that) rather than simply occupying it:
 
Tom Woods
 






This email was sent to dianaaudrey@gmail.com
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Tom Woods · PO Box 701447 · Saint Cloud, FL 34770 · USA