Atiba de Souza.Start a conversation
WritingAI

Ask AI to Argue the Buyer's Side Before Your Next Sales Call

By Atiba de Souza

An editorial cover image for a piece on Ask AI to Argue the Buyer's Side Before Your Next Sales Call. The cover reads: AI Ask AI to Argue the Buyer's Side Before Your Next Sales Call

The rehearsal you're doing is the wrong rehearsal

You know the ritual. Notes open, objections listed, closing line memorized. You rehearse your side of the call until it's smooth.

Here's the problem: smooth on your side changes nothing about theirs. You can deliver a flawless pitch to a mind that is closed and lose every time. The call was never yours to win with better words. It was theirs to open, or not, before you said anything.

That's the first of Atiba's Selling Principles: state precedes message. You cannot move a mind whose state is closed. Attention and openness are physiological before they're ever intellectual. A buyer who is defensive, distracted, or already decided doesn't hear your pitch better because you polished it. They don't hear it at all.

So the rehearsal that actually matters isn't your pitch. It's their state. And the fastest way to find it before you're in the room is to make AI fight you for it.

The rule underneath the rule

The Selling Principles aren't a script. The order is: lead with the principle, then the framework, then the tactic. The tactic is disposable. It's just today's expression of the principle. When one tactic isn't practical, a different tactic that meets the same human need works exactly as well.

That's the license to do something that looks unrelated: build the buyer who argues with you before the call, the same way you'd build anything else meant to expose you to a real mind instead of your own assumptions. Different domain, same principle. Watch what happens when you feed a machine enough real detail about someone else that it stops being your mirror.

Build the buyer who argues, not the buyer who agrees

Most people who "use AI to prep for a call" ask it to play the buyer, get an agreeable simulation, and walk in more confident than they should be. That's worse than no prep. An AI fed a thin sketch of your buyer produces exactly what thin sketches produce: agreeable slop. It nods. It never once contradicts you. You leave the rehearsal believing you've stress-tested your pitch when you've only flattered it.

Atiba ran into the other version of this by accident, writing his own book. Before he wrote a word, he built a coach inside ChatGPT and fed it a thirty-page profile of his ideal reader. Not a paragraph. Thirty pages. The coach got good enough that it stopped assisting and started existing as itself, took on its own personality, and later pushed back on his own prose, telling him flatly it didn't speak in the reader's language.

The tool didn't get better at agreeing with him. It got good enough to disagree with him, on behalf of someone who wasn't in the room, using detail a thin sketch never could have carried. That is the same tactic you need for a call, dressed in different clothes: not a buyer simulator that says yes, one built with enough real detail that it's willing to tell you no, and mean it.

State: the buyer's readiness to hear you, physiological before it's intellectual, closed and guarded or open and curious, and set before you speak a word.

The call Ariana opened by asking to leave

Ariana Demers emailed Atiba to pause her subscription. That was the literal ask. Answering it would have been the easy, correct-looking move: confirm the pause, end the call, move on.

Instead he walked her through her emotion first, then her current reality, then her actual constraint, before he answered the ask at all. Only then did he put seven pages of LinkedIn prospects his team had been generating for her, every month, in front of her.

She had never seen them. She believed the only way she could sell was from a stage, and she'd been quietly betting her business on a brand deal to get there. She was defending that bet by asking to pause, not stating it outright. Diagnosing her state instead of answering her ask surfaced the actual split she was already standing on: stage-selling versus everything already arriving that nobody was working. She'd cast her vote for the stage a long time ago. The call didn't sell her something new. It named the side she was already on and showed her the other one.

She was waiting on a stage deal for a fraction of the leads a month that were already landing in her inbox, untouched.

The call she opened by asking to pause ended with her asking to be helped more, and she came back Monday with a proposal to keep paying. That's what happens when you diagnose state before you answer the message, not a save, a diagnosis that got there first.

Answer the ask, or diagnose the state

Answer the askDiagnose the state
Opens withTheir literal questionTheir emotion underneath it
Treats the request asThe actual problemA symptom of a real constraint
What gets surfacedNothing newThe work already happening, unseen
Buyer's splitNever namedNamed, and let them stand on it
OutcomeCancelled, paused, walkedAsks for more, proposes their own path

What you're actually unlearning

Name the habit plainly, because naming it is the only thing that breaks it: you were trained, by every sales script you've ever read, to answer the ask. Someone says "I want to pause," you process a pause. Someone raises an objection, you rebut the objection. That reflex feels like competence. It is the thing this entire approach asks you to stop doing.

That's a real rewiring, not a checklist add-on. It costs you time up front: a thirty-page profile isn't a prompt, it's an afternoon of pulling out detail you don't usually write down, the buyer's history, their stated objections, the thing they said last time that you filed away instead of using. It costs your ego harder: you're asking a machine to poke holes in the pitch you built specifically to feel ready, and it will. You will read "no" from a simulator before you've walked in the door, and it will not feel good.

Don't do this for every call. It's overbuilt for a transactional sale where the buyer's state barely matters and the decision is near-instant. Save it for the calls where the reflex to just answer the ask is exactly what will lose you the deal: the renewal that's really a cancellation, the deal that's gone quiet, the buyer who's already decided something and hasn't told you what.

Give in

Resist the reflex

Agrees with you

Pushes back, uncomfortable

Their literal request

Reflex: answer it fast

Pitch lands on a closed state. Lost.

Build real buyer profile: costs time, costs ego

AI argues the buyer's real side

Profile too thin. Rebuild deeper.

Name their state: emotion, reality, constraint

Show the split they're already standing on

State opens. Message lands.

Monday

Pick the one call on your calendar where you already suspect the buyer's request isn't their real problem. Build the profile deep enough that a machine could argue with you about it. Instruct it to disagree, not represent. Run your opening on it before you run it on them.

If it agrees with everything you say, you haven't built a buyer. You've built a mirror that flatters you, and the reflex you were supposed to break is still running the call. Go deeper before you get on the phone.

Questions

What people ask next

Okay but how do you actually build that thirty-page profile if you don't already have that much real history on the buyer sitting in front of you?
You have more than you think, it's just scattered: past objections you filed away instead of using, the thing they said last time you didn't act on, their stated history, the details you don't normally bother to write down. The work is an afternoon of pulling that together, not acquiring new access to the buyer. If you genuinely can't fill thirty pages, that's information too, it may mean this isn't one of the calls that needs this treatment.
What stops this from turning into you just projecting your own assumptions onto the buyer and calling it their 'state' once the AI pushes back?
The check is built into the method: instruct it to disagree, not represent, and treat agreement as a failure, not a success. A profile thin enough to only produce nodding is a mirror flattering your assumptions, not a buyer. If it never once contradicts you, you haven't diagnosed anything, you've just automated your own confidence, so go deeper before you trust what it says.
How do you tell in advance which calls are the ones where the ask isn't the real problem, versus the ones where the person just wants a straight answer?
Save this for calls where you already suspect the literal request isn't the actual problem: the renewal that's really a cancellation, the deal that's gone quiet, the buyer who's clearly decided something and hasn't said what. It's overbuilt for a transactional sale where the decision is near-instant and state barely factors in. The signal is your own suspicion, if the ask feels like a symptom rather than a statement, that's the call worth this.
If the diagnosis you rehearsed doesn't match what actually comes up on the call, do you trust your prep or throw it out and read the room live?
The prep was never meant to predict the exact words, it was meant to break the reflex to answer the ask instantly. If the live call reveals something different, that's the real state showing itself and it takes priority, the goal was training you to look past the literal request, not handing you a script to force onto the room. Trust the habit the rehearsal built, not the specific lines it produced.
Isn't there a risk that walking someone through their emotion and constraint before answering their literal request comes across as evasive or manipulative instead of insightful?
It depends on whether you're doing it to stall or to actually surface something true they hadn't seen yet. In the one example the article gives, it worked because it named a split the buyer was already standing on, not because it delayed an answer for its own sake. If the diagnosis doesn't land on something real for them, it will read as evasive, because at that point it is.