I think a lot of our instincts about convincing others of things are messed up on the basis that, under less technological circumstances, we would always be talking in person.
What's more, the most "you have to succeed" moments of convincing others would be in the case of time-sensitive emergencies.
Put these two things together, and I imagine our strongest instincts for convincing others is to appeal to emotion, not logic. It is less a matter of facts, and more of charisma, energy, and, in some cases, genuinely looking frightened enough for everyone to shut up and listen.
It supports a lot of behaviors, including the effectiveness of fearmongering, and the difficulties in arguing on fact alone.
If we accept that as true, then it also makes sense to conclude that arguing using logic over emotion is not only a learned skill...
...But so is listening to those arguments.