I found this to be the case when I was telling people I’d like to communicate via Signal. For the most part my explanation of why was not compelling for them, s

I found this to be the case when I was telling people I’d like to communicate via Signal. For the most part my explanation of why was not compelling for them, so I compromised and use Signal for a subset of friends and iMessage for everyone else. My experience does not bring me to the same conclusion as the article or your comment. I don’t think it’s about whining or an emotional appeal. Rather, I think it’s a matter of not giving the other party anything to argue with. If I enumerate the many reasons which have convinced me to not use Whatsapp, the other person has a lot of...”rhetorical surface” with which to attack. They may or may not be successful, but they can probably launch a decently cogent rebuttal. On the other hand if I simply say, “I don’t like it”, and follow up with, “I don’t know, I just don’t”, there isn’t enough substance with which to find a logical flaw. Your friends might judge you for it but, in my experience, it won’t stick out enough in their memory for them to really focus on it one way or the other. They are sort of forced to concede because your reasons are inscrutable. Disengaging can be its own form of victory, because it forces a draw (so to speak). Obviously that isn‘t persuasive; it’s defensive. Likewise, I used to compete in Speech & Debate tournaments at the national level. In that context you have to engage, by design. My team (and rivaling teams) had a philosophy that we’d impart to all new recruits: when you’re formulating your point, deliver it forthrightly and concisely. Support your position with the minimum that will suffice and provide further support as needed, to parry the rhetorical attacks you encounter. This gives your opponent less material to refute, which means each individual point you deliver is harder to detract. When you’re trying to persuade someone (especially if you have an audience) a reasonable point delivered confidently, and with one or two strong reasons or citations, is far more privileged than many “passing” reasons which can made the focus of a rebuttal.