According to logic

I saw that you wrote in one of your answers that you can't move a person from their position with logical arguments. Unless what you are convincing them of is their internal position and you just gave them arguments/reasonings. Does that mean that what they claim to be their position is not true? Is that the answer? I may have misunderstood what you said, but I can't find it again.
You also wrote that through rhetoric it is possible. I separated the two questions because you asked for one question in each thread.

See my comments on the requested assumption. There is a column about this that has just appeared and in many places on the site. A valid logical argument is structured so that its conclusion is swallowed up by the premises, and therefore if you were convinced of the conclusion, then you actually believed it from the beginning, but you were not aware of it. Someone who really does not accept x, you will never be able to convince him to accept it through logical argument. But rhetoric works differently, and through it we examine, adopt or reject, basic premises. Therefore, with rhetorical tools, it is possible to persuade a person to change his position.

I made a mistake in the wording in the thread about rhetoric. Move from his position to the opposite position. There are examples of rhetorical persuasion with a logical fallacy, such as disparaging an argument because of reference to a person's body. I asked about an example of a situation in which an innocent person can be convinced without a logical fallacy through rhetoric. And is this a type of deception and blind faith?

So why are you writing this here? Anyway, I didn't understand the question. If there is no failure, then why is it cheating?