Persuasive speech ​

When one agent puts another in a role and essentially persuades them to do one thing or another, there are options to do this more or less directly, with more or less pressure.

• Argumentation and argument structure

An argument consists of a thesis (statement), evidence in favor of the thesis, link (why the evidence actually confirms the thesis), modifier/epistemic status (obviously, probably, sometimes). Counterarguments aim to destroy one of the components of the argumentation: refute the evidence; destroy the link between the evidence and the thesis (that is, refute the cause-effect relationship and even break the correlation, calling it illusory); question the epistemology through which the author of the argument arrived at this particular epistemic status/modifier. This is how argumentation is built, both in writing and orally.

Argumentation is relevant within activity roles.

• Socratic dialogues and questions

When one does not want to argue or it does not make sense, instead of argumentation, questions can be asked. The question scheme often follows the same structure as the argument, but its task is to bypass resistance and prevent the birth of new arguments when the argumentation is taking place outside of activity roles.

• Following the interlocutor (defining the preferred role)

There are also situations when it is necessary to determine which role (in all three "layers") will be natural for the interlocutor—for testing, for unraveling a tangled situation, and so on. In this case, following the structure of the argument is not suitable, and it is necessary to follow the interlocutor, gradually asking about his impulses and motives, without trying to persuade him of anything. Questions like: how do you act? Why is this important? And recognition that it is important to see the next motive (because there are usually many of these motives). Do not forget to take detailed notes in these cases.