A currently living person doesn't want to die, but a potentially living person doesn't yet want to live, so there's an asymmetry between the two scenarios.

If you want impact, use the narrative fallacy. What I mean is, use all of the other biases and fallacies you listed - tell a story about John, the guy who met a cool scientist guy when he was in primary school and now his life goal is to be a scientist. He decides to do work on global warming because 'what could be more important than this issue?' He expects to live in the city, be the head of a big lab... But he's not very good at global warming science (maybe he's not very good at research?), and he doesn't seem to notice that the advice his colleagues give him isn't helping. So he sticks to his guns because he's already got a degree in global warming, but he's always stressing about not having a job...

And so on.

And then rewind. John discovers rationality when he's a young adult, and becomes John-prime. Compare John to John-prime, whose rationality training allows him to recognise the availability bias at work on his dream of being a scientist, and since scholarship is a virtue, he researches, interviews... discovers that politics is a much better fit! His rationality informs him that the most important thing is improving quality of life, not global warming or power, so he donates to third-world charities and ensures when he runs for political positions he does so on a platform of improving social welfare and medical access. His rationality lets him evaluate advice-givers, and he manages to see through most of the self-serving advice - and when he finds a mentor who seems genuine, he sticks to that mentor, improving his success in politics...

And so on.

(And then the punchline: explain why this story makes the audience feel like rationality is important with a description of the narrative bias!)

Why does one have to be better than the other?

I really need to fix my blog archive, but I discussed this in the post at the top of this page.

Please don't do that. OP's comment doesn't make any sense now.

response a) My life gets better with each year I live. I learn new things and make new friends. 2 people who live 12 years will not have the same amount of happiness as I will on my birthday, when I turn 24. I see no reason why the same should not hold for even longer lifespans.

Response b) I privilege people that already exist over people who do not exist. A person living 800 years is more valuable to me EVEN if you say the same amount of happiness happens in both cases. I care about existing people being happy, and about not creating sad people, but I don't particularly care about creating new happy entities unless it's necessary for the perpetuation of humanity, which is something I value.

response c) The personal response, I value my own happiness significantly higher than that of other people. 1 year of my own life is worth more to me than 1 year of someone else's life. If my decision was between creating 10 people as happy as I am or making myself 10 times happier, I will make myself 10 times happier.

Finally, you don't seem to realize what is meant by caring about average utility. In your scenario, the TOTAL years lived remains the same in both cases, but the AVERAGE utility goes far down in the second case. 80 years per person is a lot less than 800 years per person.

Rationality alerts you when you have a false belief that’s making you worse off.

The framing of this section (not just the title) makes it look like an invitation to motivated skepticism, which is generally a bad idea.

Yay! Word of God on the issue! (Warning: TvTropes). Good to know I wasn't too far off-base.

I can see how g and h can be considered equivalent using the: emotions-> goals . In fact I would assume that would also make a and b pretty much equivalent, as well as c and d, e and f, etc.

In the talk, rationality is positioned as something that decides which of System 1 or System 2 should be used in a particular situation. But that's straw System 2! What's actually happening is that your System 2 is smart enough to get input from System 1 and update on it appropriately (or conversely, as in taking ideas seriously on an intuitive level).

The most obvious pro of using "intuition" and "deductive reasoning" would be that it would be a smaller cognitive leap for the audience to follow. For example, when you say "System 1" the audience has to translate: System 1-> Intuition -> One of the 2 types of reasoning

Just saying "intuition" removes the need for this extra step.

A possible pro of using "system 1" and "system 2" is that it might allow the audience to distance themselves from any emotional reactions they might have to the ideas of intuition and deduction.