Overview

I loathed doing argumentative essays. It was that time of the year when in high school English classes we had to write essays. Argumentative essays to be more specific. The topics would range from, should you wear uniforms to go to school? To, Is social media beneficial to students? I didn’t want to research what the other side had to say about the topic or come up with an “intelligent” way to justify my reasons. What’s more, my English teachers never used the word rhetoric in relation to argumentative essays. They never said to me, “rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and that’s the skill you are using for this assignment.” In a sense, I just never understood the point of these essays. As it was never explicitly explained to me.

For the students that in some ways experienced the same thing as me, I would like to say that rhetoric is more than just persuasion. There is a behind-the-scenes process that the orator archives before speaking in front of an audience. As the book that inspired this chapter mentioned, Aristotle is named the father of logic and contributed his theory of rhetoric. He also created the Artistic Proofs: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. I won’t go into detail as these rhetorical devices were taught in high school, so students should already know these rhetorical strategies. The point of this chapter is to illustrate what rhetoric actually is and how it differs from dialectic; to provide examples of how we are able to see rhetoric in today’s society; to analyze how an argument is constructed, and to explain the topoi lines of argument. It’s crucial to understand the principles of rhetoric, as it will make it easier for the speaker to infiltrate into their intended individual.

Rhetoric and Dialectic

Rhetoric and dialectic construct ways to develop more cohesive forms of arguments. First, when using rhetoric the speaker is trying to teach the audience about a specific idea, thought, opinion, political issue, etc. The speaker will provide the audience with their own definition of their theory, and align that theory with the audience’s emotions to basically create a whole speech. Rhetoric is designed to change the opinions of others. Dialectic goes along with this definition of rhetoric as well, however, is broader in a sense. Dialectic deals with general questions in front of a small audience. There is a back-and-forth between people with the conclusion to provide an answer to a question. There is no emotion involved in this. Each speaker will try to search for the truth in the present argument. The whole point of dialectic is to reach a reasoned conclusion in front of two conflicting ideas that are both true.

To give an example of rhetoric, imagine turning on the television and seeing a presidential political debate. Each speaker will provide their own reasons to explain why they are a better choice for the job. This will happen in front of a large audience, they each will dismantle their ideas to explain by comparing and contrasting; giving anecdotes that in some way links to their intended audience, basically using rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) to infiltrate their ideas into others. As for dialectic, the setting is much simpler. Ideas that contradict each other but at the same time have some truth behind them could be, stating to a friend that “I am strong and I am vulnerable…There is no fight left in me but I will continue.” There is, however, an important factor to dialectic. Everyone holds their own perception of truth and it’s never absolute. It’s not about persuasion, the goal is to reach common ground.

Rhetoric Is All Around Us

When thinking about how rhetoric works, we need to analyze the way it’s used today. Aristotle explained how there are three rhetorical settings in the oratory world: Deliberative, Epideictic, and Forensic. These three settings illustrate the way a speech, situation, and audience affect the system of rhetoric.

First, deliberative oratory can be defined as a decision-making tool to address issues, laws, and policies utilizing a pro and con list. For example, social justice campaigns, political speeches, town hall meetings, and advertisement proposals. For this to be a success, the speaker needs to be able to understand what the audience wants, they need to think about the future of the people to accomplish their goal; what would be the most beneficial outcome?

Secondly, epideictic oratory is all about blame and praise upon a person or something. For instance, the tables should only have legs in the center/middle as a person can hit their toe with one of the side legs. It sounds stupid, but the person puts blame on that object and relates it to something painful. Everyone in the audience can now vividly recall a time when the same thing happened to them. In addition, when writing cover letters to apply for a job, the company needs to be mentioned, explaining why they deserve to be admired. Or letters of recommendation to illustrate the success of that particular employer. Graduation ceremonies and retirement parties are also examples of epideictic rhetoric.

Lastly, forensic oratory is the speech that deals with justifications of crimes using past references. Forensic oratory is all about judicial speeches. This deals with defense and accusation by wisely using words that can reach an understanding from both sides. In courtrooms or police holding rooms, the suspect gets questioned by the detective or the prosecutor using past tense so that they could admit to the crime. To question whether something is just or unjust forensic oratory is at the front of this decision by using past actions that support the present situation. For example, if a student thinks their grade is wrong, they provide evidence (tests, quizzes, homework assignments) as proof to articulate their argument as to why they deserve a better grade.

These rhetorical settings do provide evidence that rhetoric is universal. If we look closely through the cracks of society, we can see how this field of study has become a necessity in the world.

Rhetoric As an Enthymeme

To describe the types of arguments applied in rhetoric, I want to define how rhetoric can be seen as an Enthymeme. To contribute a simpler definition of enthymeme, we need to understand syllogism: A logical argument that arrives at a valid conclusion when two ideas are declared to be true. In that instance, an enthymeme is a logical/rational argument where the meaning behind that argument is not explicitly stated: I cannot trust Mark anymore, he lied about the event. (People who lie can’t be trusted). So to combine that with rhetoric, speakers will create an argument with the audience. Meaning that when creating a theory the orator understands the spectators’ point of view, beliefs, and feelings, to successfully deliver their opinion: David and Joseph cheated on the test, therefore they should both fail the test (cheaters shouldn’t get a second chance). The audience that actually studied and righteously completed the test would support that opinion. In addition, when it comes to constructing a democratic argument, it fundamentally means that everyone gets an equal opinion. Democracy is about getting a chance to express ideas with freedom. So in a democratic argument, there is no secret meaning behind the theories as each person contributes their own theories. In the end, enthymemes provide another diverse way speakers illustrate arguments.

Topoi Lines of Arguments

The term Topoi comes from the Greek which means “place”. Richard Nordquist wrote this article that explains how Aristotle took the term Topoi as a metaphor to illustrate the “places” writers drop arguments that align with a specific subject, “As such, the topoi are tools or strategies of invention” (Nordquist). General topics are basically arguments or opinions that can be applied to any situation. For example, if Joe failed the exam, that would mean that the exam was hard. That would mean that one standard of reasoning relates to the other. As J.M. Balkin says, “The study of topics is the study of the commonplaces that bind together a practice of reasoned argument.” As for Special Topics, if the orator brought out a response from the audience whether it was intellectual, stupid, useless, or fortunate the goal of the speech was achieved. Aristotle links the special topics with the three rhetorical settings. For instance, in epideictic rhetoric, the purpose of this setting is to bring either courage or injustice. Overall, the lines of argument are about the circumstances the writers/speakers choose to “place” a particular method of persuasion.

Conclusion

To conclude, the idea behind learning the principles of rhetoric is to understand how to effectively use this tool. As mentioned throughout this chapter, rhetoric and dialectic are able to provide ways of expressing opinions depending on the circumstances. The rhetorical settings are forms of arguments for diverse settings. Another way to view rhetoric is through enthymeme; arguments that do not provide an explicit explanation. As for topoi, these are “places” where arguments are found whether there are general or special topics. Whether that is by public speaking or writing, rhetoric revolves around every aspect of society.