ABSTRACT
No matter how easy it is to disparage the other side, it is a trap worth avoiding. Attacking the other side results in advocacy that sounds negative and defensive. No employer is going to hire a candidate because all the other candidates are terrible. Moreover, because attacking focuses on the other side's facts or arguments, it can have the paradoxical effect of reinforcing those arguments in the decision maker's mind. As with an unduly positive one-sided argument, moreover, arguments focused on why the other side is wrong are likely to evoke skepticism about the message and the trustworthiness of the advocate making them. Finally, just like a too positive one-sided argument, advocacy that aggressively focuses on disparaging the other side's case can stimulate reactance and over-correction. When an advocate "piles on" the other side, readers naturally come to the defense of the person being attacked.
