To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: In legal settings, the emphasis is often on the positive act of giving arguments and evidence for a given outcome: Share the proof and the reasons to believe, and let those appeals work their magic on your audience. But there is also a flip side to that. Persuasion can also be thought of as negating the reasons against your preferred outcome, or reducing the barriers that your fact finders might have and the obstacles that would make it harder for them to side with you. As I’ve written before, the first set of strategies are often called “alpha” strategies, while the second set are “omega” strategies. And a legal setting seems particularly ripe for the omega side. After all, your jury or judge knows that you are contractually aligned with one party, and motivated to support that party’s interests whatever the facts might be. They’re likely to want to resist that. In addition, you have opposing counsel whose main motivation is to give your fact finders reasons to doubt everything you are saying to them. The result is that as you offer your messages, themes, and arguments, you’re likely doing that in a context in which your audience is mentally counter-arguing every one of your points.