I saw that you wrote in one of the answers that you can’t move a person from his position by logical arguments. Unless what you are persuading him of is actually his inner position, and you only attached arguments/justifications to it. Does that mean that what he claims is his position is not really true—is that the answer? It’s possible I misunderstood what you said, but I can’t find it again.
And you also wrote that by means of rhetoric you can. I separated the two questions because you asked for one question per thread.

See what I wrote about begging the question. There’s a column about this that just went up, and in many other places on the site as well. A valid logical argument is built in such a way that its conclusion is contained within the premises, and therefore if you were convinced by the conclusion, then in essence you believed it from the outset, only you weren’t aware of it. Someone who truly does not accept x—you will never be able to persuade him to accept it by means of a logical argument. But rhetoric works differently, and through it we examine, adopt, or reject basic assumptions. Therefore, with rhetorical tools it is indeed possible to persuade a person to change his position.

I phrased it incorrectly in the thread about rhetoric. Moved from his position to the opposite position. There are examples of rhetorical persuasion involving a logical fallacy, like dismissing a claim because of something about the person making it. I was asking for an example of a situation in which a naïve person can be persuaded through rhetoric without any logical fallacy. And is that a kind of deception and sleight of hand?

So why are you writing that here? In any case, I didn’t understand the question. If there’s no fallacy, then why is it deception?