Three Kinds of Rhetoric
The Three Basic Issues From Thank You for Arguing, by Jay
Heinrichs
Before you begin arguing, ask yourself the question: What’s the issue? According
to Aristotle, all issues boil down to just three (the Greek were crazy about that
number):
Blame
Values
Choice
You can slot any kind of issue involving persuasion into one of these
categories.
Who moved my cheese? This, of course, is a blame issue. Whodunit?
Should abortion be legal? Values. What’s morally right or wrong about letting a
woman choose whether or not to end the budding life inside her own body?
(My choice of words implies the values each side holds—a woman’s right to
her own body, and the sanctity of life.)
Should we build a plant in Oaxaca? Choice: to build or not to build, Oaxaca or not
Oaxaca.
Should Brad and Jen have split up? Values—not moral ones, necessarily, but what
you and your interlocutor value. Were they just too cute to separate?
Did OJ do it? Blame.
Shall we dance? Choice: to dance or not to dance.
Why should you care which question slots into which core issue? It matters
because you will never meet your goals if you argue around the wrong core
issue. Watch a couple as they in their living room, reading books and listening
to music.
She: Can you turn that down a little?
He: You’re the one who set the volume last.
She: Oh, really? Then who was it blasting “Free Bird” all over the place this
afternoon?
He: So that’s what this is about. You hate my music.
What does she want out of this argument? Quiet. It’s a choice issue. She wants
him to choose to turn the music down. But instead of choices, the argument
turns to deal with blame, then values.
Blame: You’re the one who set the volume last.
Values: So that’s what this is about. You hate my music.
It’s hard to make a positive choice about turning the volume knob when your
argue about a past noise violation and the existential qualities of “Freebird.”
The examples I gave of the core issues—blame, values and choice—show a
certain pattern. The blame questions deal with the past. The values questions
are in the present tense. And the choice questions have to do with the future.
Blame = Past
Values = Present
Choice = Future
If you find an argument spinning out of control, try switching the tense. To pin
blame on the cheese thief, use the past tense. To get someone to believe that
abortion is a terrible sin, use the present tense. The future, though, is the best
tense for getting peace and quiet in the living room.
Aristotle, who devised a form of rhetoric for each of the tenses, liked the future
best of all.
The rhetoric of the past, he said, deals with issues of justice. This is the judicial
argument of the courtroom. Aristotle called it forensic rhetoric, because it deals
with forensics. Our music-challenged couple uses the past tense for blaming
each other.
He: You’re the one who set the volume last.
She: Then who was it blasting “Free Bird”?
If you want to try someone on charges of volume abuse (not to mention bad
taste), you’re in the right tense. Forensic argument helps us determine
whodunit, not who’s-doing-it or who-will-do-it. Watch “Law and Order,” and
you’ll notice that most of the dialogue is in the past tense. It works great for
lawyers and cops, but a loving couple should be wary of the tense. The purpose
of forensic rhetoric is to determine guilt and mete out punishment; couples
who get in the habit of punishing each other usually end up miserable or
divorced.
How about the present tense? Is that any better? It can be. The rhetoric of the
present handles praise and condemnation, separating the good from the bad,
distinguishing groups from other groups and individuals from each other.
Aristotle reserved the present for describing people who meet a community’s
ideals or fail to live up to them. It is the communal language of commencement
addresses, funeral orations, and sermons. It celebrates heroes or condemns a
common enemy. It gives people a sort of tribal identity. (We’re great, terrorists
are cowards). When a leader has trouble confronting the future, you hear
similar tribal talk.
Aristotle’s term for this kind of language is demonstrative rhetoric, because
ancient orators used it to demonstrate their fanciest techniques. Our
argumentative couple uses it to divide each other.
He: So that’s what this is about. You hate my music.
You might say that the man bears sole blame for switching tenses from past to
present. But let’s not get all forensic on each other, okay? The man may be
right, after all; perhaps the argument has to do with the guy’s thing for Lynyrd
Skynyrd and not the volume knob. In any case, their dialogue has suddenly
turned tribal: I like my music. You hate it. If the man happened to be a
politician he would find it hard to resist adding, “And that’s just wrong!” We
use the present tense to talk about values. That is wrong. This is right.
Detesting “Free Bird” is morally wrong.
If you want to make a joint decision, you need to focus on the future. This is
the tense that Aristotle saved for his favorite rhetoric. He called it deliberative,
because it argues about choices and helps us decide how to meet our mutual
goals. Deliberative argument’s chief topic is “the advantageous,” according to
Aristotle. This is the most pragmatic kind of rhetoric. It skips right and wrong,
good and bad, in favor of expedience.
Present-tense (demonstrative) rhetoric tends to finish with people bonding or
separating.
Past-tense (forensic) rhetoric threatens punishment.
Future-tense (deliberative) argument promises a payoff. You can see why
Aristotle dedicated the rhetoric of decision-making to the future.
Our poor couple remains stranded in the present tense, so let’s rewind their
dialogue and make them speak deliberatively—in the future tense, that is.
She: Can you turn that down a little?
He: Sure, I’d be happy to.
Wait. Shouldn’t he say “I’ll be happy to”? I will, not I would? Well, sure, you’re
probably right. He could. But by using the conditional voice—would instead of
will—he leaves himself an opening.
He: But is the music too loud, or do you want me to play something else?
She: Well, now that you mention it, I’d prefer something a little less hair-bandy.
Ouch! He plays nice, and she insults the entire classic rock genre. That makes
him feel justified to retaliate; but he does it moderately.
He: Something more elevatorish, you mean? That doesn’t really turn me on.
Want to watch a movie?
By turning the argument back to choices, the man keeps it from getting too
personal—and, possibly, keeps her off balance, making her a bit more
vulnerable to persuasion.
She: What do you have in mind?
He: We haven’t seen “Terminator 2” in ages.
She: “Terminator 2?!” I hate that movie.
As he well knows. This is a little off topic, but I can’t resist giving you another
rhetorical trick: propose an extreme choice first. It will make the one you want
sound more reasonable. I used the technique myself in getting my wife to agree
to name our son after my uncle George. I proposed lots of alternatives—my
personal favorite was Herman Melville Heinrichs—until she finally said, “You
know, ‘George’ doesn’t really sound that bad.” I kissed her and told her how
much I loved her, and notched another argument on my belt.
Back to our couple.
He: Well, then, how about “Lawrence of Arabia”?
He knows she would prefer a different movie—the desert just isn’t her thing—
but it doesn’t sound that bad after hearing the first choice.
She: Okay.
“Lawrence” it is. Which happens to be the movie he wanted in the first place.
Three Kinds of Rhetoric / Aristotle

The Greek word for topic, "topos," literally mean "a place." In rhetoric, a topics
are those places where a speaker can look for the available means to persuade his
audience (Kennedy 45). Having stated that there are three different genres of
rhetoric, Aristotle now proceeds to describe those topics in each of the different
kinds of rhetoric that will be of use to the speaker.
rhetoric
dialectic
topi
special topi
common topi
The study of speaking and writing persuasively. Contains the study of
both what is communicated and how communication takes place. (“R”
means the study of classical rhetoric; “r” means the study of rhetoric
more broadly)
Distinct from rhetoric (yet sometimes considered a companion to
rhetoric), dialectic is logical (syllogistic) argumentation concerned
with reason to approach probable truths. Audience or context is not a
consideration in dialectic argumentation.
Logical appeals can be invented/composed by using rational
arguments that fit within known topics (topi). The topics of invention
have basic categories of relationships of ideas. Topi service as a
heuristic for discovering things to say and how they can be said about
a subject. Topi are the “places to find things” to create an argument.
Rhetorical arguments fall into one of the three specific (or special) topi
which would direct the rhetor to a heuristic for developing a special
argument. See Silva for a list of special topi. (The three special types
of topi are Judicial, Deliberative, and Ceremonial.)
Rhetorical arguments might fall into one of these more general (or
common) topi which would direct the rhetor to a heuristic for
developing a common type of argument. See Silva for a list of
common topi.
epideictic speech
forensic speech
deliberative speech
One of three principle kinds of classical public speech.
Epideictic is ceremonial/demonstrative speech. A eulogy
would be an epideictic speech.
One of three principle kinds of classical public speech.
Forensic is judicial/legal speeches. The purpose of
forensic speech was originally for defending or accusing
a person. Today, debate is often called forensics picking
up on the notion of one team speak for (defending a
position) and one team speaking against (accusing of
flawed reasoning).
One of three principle kinds of classical public speech.
Deliberative is political/legislative speech. The primary
concern of deliberative speech is to move people
toward future action (laws/policies that would affect
the future of society). Deliberative rhetoric is
argumentation for or against future action.
B&H pg. 3;
Silva
B&H pg 3; Silva
B&H pg. 3;
Silva
Aristotle: 3 types of rhetoric:
Blame = Past
1.
Forensic --Forensic rhetoric defends or prosecutes in legal
proceedings.
The forensic process argues for the innocence or guilt of a single
person for events of the past.
Topics for Forensic Rhetoric (1.10-15)


The aim of forensic rhetoric is either accusation (kategoria) or defense
(apologia).
o To accuse or defend someone, the rhetoric must first have an
understanding of the definition of injustice (adikia)
o We must understand what injustice is, what its motives are, and what the
state of mind is of someone who commits an unjust act.
Aristotle defines Injustice as "voluntary illegal harm." (1.10). An act of injustice,
therefore, is always:
1. a voluntary act (i.e.,, it is done freely and knowingly)
2. an act that causes harm (i.e.., injury or damage to another's property to person)
3. an act that is illegal (i.e., it is done in violation of the laws of one's country)
o
o

If I want to accuse someone of an act of injustice I must first demonstrate that the
act was done voluntarily, that it caused some harm/damage, and that it was in
violation of the law.
Conversely, if I want to defend someone against a charge of injustice, then I must
first prove that either (a) the act was not voluntary (e.g., because the accused was
insane at the time he committed the act of injustice), or (b) that it produced no real
harm (e.g., consentual S & M), or (c) that the act was not, in fact, illegal (e.g.,
because it was done in self defense?)
There are seven causes of all human action: chance, nature, force, calculation,
habit, anger, desire.
o Based upon the specific cause of an act, we can determine whether an act
has been done voluntarily or involuntarily:
Involuntary Acts are those that are due to:
1. chance (no observable cause: e.g., spontaneous brawl at a soccer game)
2. nature (cause is within and determined: e.g., mental illness or retardation)
3. force
(against one's own desire: e.g., Patty Hearst)
Voluntary acts are those that are due to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
calculation (done with deliberation and planning: e.g., first degree murder)
habit
(done through the repeated performance of an act: e.g., drug use)
anger
(done out of the desire for revenge: e.g., retaliating against an insult)
desire
(done for the sake of something pleasant: e.g., rape)
Values = Present
2.
Epideictic [epi-deck-tick] --Epideictic speeches aim to censure
or honor someone or something.
The epideictic process praises or censures people or things in the
present.
Epideictic Speech Topics
Examples of speeches with epideictic speech topic elements are praising, blaming or
celebrating a birthday, wedding roasts and toasts, eulogies or funeral speeches, farewell
addresses, political and Fourth of July orations. All praise or blame the virtues, feelings
and values of exceeding boundaries, achieving, justice, overcoming obstacles,
condemnation, commendation or mourning. Ten sample specific thesis purposes you can
work out:
Praise:
person Rosa Parks for her act of protest against the segregation on city public transit
vehicles which strengthens the America's civil rights movement.
group Sessions of meditation groups in order to transmit powerful spiritual energy for the
benefit of humanity.
idea Praise in public and criticize in private, as Russian empress Catherine II teached.
Blame:
person Britney Spears for attracting aggressive news paper paparazzi in down town Los
Angeles because of her behavior.
organization Blame the commercial and investment banks that are responsible for the
ongoing financial meltdown.
theory The idea of correcting injustices of governments in history, because it will causes
modern problems.
Celebrate:
person Nobel Peace Prize 1983 winner Lech Walesa, the Polish worker from the Gdansk
Shipyard who negotiated the transition from communism to democracy.
group Wedding ceremony attendees generate feelings of closeness and community.
idea Sharing grief is the best recipe for emotional healing.
value The best Thanksgiving speech topics praise and welcomes the feeling to be
surrounded and supported by close friends at the dinner table.
Topics for Epideitic Rhetoric (1.9)


The end of epideitic rhetoric is the exhibition of a noble or base subject. We,
therefore, need to define what we mean by noble and base.
o Aristotle defines the noble as that which is intrinsically good (i.e., good in
itself; desired for its own sake) and praiseworthy
o Since virtue is intrinsically good, it must be a noble thing.
o Therefore, the possession of such virtues as justice, courage, self-control,
generosity and prudence makes a man noble.
 Since justice and courage are among the most praiseworthy of the
virtues, the possession of these virtues in particular makes a
person even more noble.
To put it in simple terms, the possession of virtues makes a person noble in
character and worthy of praise, while the possession of vices makes him base and
worthy of disapprobation.
Amplification of Character:

to effectively praise a subject, it is often necessary to amplify his/her qualities. He
can do this in either of two ways:
1. magnification of a person's virtues (e.g., moderate courage becomes tremendous
courage)
2. transforming vices into virtues (e.g., a stubborn man becomes determined; a
drunk becomes a fun-loving guy)
Exercise: Aristotle's recommendations on how
amplify character are used quite effectively in
Anthony's speech in praise of Caesar in
Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar. Keep in mind that
in the scene right before this one, Brutus, one of
Caesar's murderers, has just convinced the crowd
that Caesar was a tyrant and deserved to be
assassinated. By the end of his speech Caesar has
been declared a villain and Brutus the savior of the
Roman Republic. Anthony's task is to persuade his
audience that they are completely mistaken about
Caesar---that is was in fact a truly swell guy---and that
Brutus is the real villain. How does he use
amplification of character to achieve this end? Read
Anthony's Speech
Choice = Future
3.
*Deliberative --Deliberative concerns policy-making speeches
that affect items in the future.
Aristotle elevated the deliberative process above forensic and
epideictic. The deliberative process addresses future issues, which
have impact on a greater number of people. For example, persuading
Corinth to allow Athenian merchants access to a particular trade route
would use the deliberative process.
Topics for Deliberative Rhetoric (1.4-8)


In 1.4 Aristotle observes that it is not necessary for the speaker to have familiarity
about every conceivable topic. Things that happen through necessity (e.g., the
laws of physics) and what happen at random (matters of good or bad luck) are not
subject to debate. The topics that he must familiarize himself with are those in
which human action can make some difference (1359b).
In deliberative rhetoric these topics are generally of two kinds: Political and
ethical.
1. Political Topics (1.4):
General Political Topics
Sub-Topics
revenue
source of revenue, expenses of the state
war and peace
own strength, strength of neighbors,
similarities and differences
national defense
size and deployment of one own military
resources
trade
items that can be produced at home and those
that must be imported
general legislation

different kinds of government, advantages and
disadvantages of each
Remember Deliberative Rhetoric is concerned about future actions that are either
advantageous or disadvantageous. In the political realm, why does the speaker
need to have a least some familiarity with the above topics in order to be able to
persuade his audience?
2. Ethical Topics (1.5-7):

One might ask why we have a discussion of ethics in this section? Aristotle's
argument for this move can be stated in the following way:
o The end of deliberative rhetoric is what is advantageous.
o What is advantageous is what is good for human beings.
o Happiness (eudaimonia) is universally recognized as the supreme good for
human beings
o Therefore we need to understand what happiness is before we can
persuade anyone of what is advantageous to them.

Aristotle's understanding of happiness can be summed up in the following way:
o happiness is nothing more than virtue along with the possession of certain
external goods
o These external goods include: health, wealth, family, friends, good looks,
reputation, comfort in one's old age, etc.
Aristotle understands these goods to form a natural hierarchy [with some goods
being more excellent than others]
o all rational human beings, he believes, would recognize this hierarchy.
Therefore, knowing which goods are recognized as superior to others can help you
to persuade an audience to follow a particular course of action (1.6-7)


Exercise: Many of the topics treated in Aristotle's
Rhetoric 1.4-7 are used by Thucydides in his
description of a debate that was held in 427 B.C.
between Cleon and Diodotus in the Athenian
Assembly. The subject of discussion was whether to
follow though on a vote that was previously held
which called for the execution of all the men of
Mytilene for their defiance of Athenian authority.
What specific topics do the speakers make use of in
their attempt to persuade the members of the
Athenian assembly to support their position? Whose
arguments do you feel are the more persuasive?
Read Thucydides' Text
Using the enthymeme (non-rational decisions based on values and
opinions held by the audience) and artistic proofs (logos, ethos and
pathos) as vehicle, the audience is transported through the substance from
the position in time to the conclusion. This is the art of rhetoric that creates
persuasion.
Aristotle’s idea for rhetoric is that it is mainly used in the public assemblies in
order to advance the political, cultural and social goals of the Greek polis, where
one can only be a spectator or a judge. Aristotle remarks that rhetoric can be
defined “as an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of
persuasion.” Aristotle limits rhetoric to the confines of the Greek political
assemblies and law courts where a final judgment had to be made.
Rhetoric can help settle situations where the probable needs to be converted to
a decision (such as whether someone is guilty or not, or whether a
particular course of political action needs to be taken); therefore, rhetoric
can only work in cases where an underlying truth is capable of being uncovered.
In contrast, dialectic is used for arriving at logical decisions in philosophical
discussions. In dialectic, judge and spectator are combined because decisions
will have to be made in context of an on-going argument in order for the
argument to continue. Dialectic’s purpose is given in terms of its qualities in
carrying on a conversation in order to advance philosophical truths where no
practical outcome is needed.
enthymeme
example
metaphor
ethos
pathos
A syllogistic argument in which the conclusion is based
on a “probable” premise; thus, leading to a probable
conclusion. Sometimes referred to as “informal” or
“truncated” syllogism, the enthymeme was not/is not
always considered sound because a premise is implied
rather than proven.
Specimen or sample. Example is related to the topic of
invention. An “example” is used to strengthen a point by
a true or contrived example.
Metaphor is related to invention and is a comparison that
is made by referring to something as another thing.
Metaphor is an implied comparison. (Life is like a box of
chocolates.)
One of three forms of persuasive appeal. Ethos is
concerned with the persuasive appeal of one’s character.
One’s character can bestow upon one, in the
minds/hearts of the audience, the right to make an
argument and thus the ability to make an argument.
One of the three forms of persuasive appeal. Pathos is
concerned with the persuasive appeal to emotion.
Emotional appeals, according to classical rhetoricians,
can come at the expense of logical (logos) appeals. Thus,
pathetic appeals should be used prudently.
B&H pg. 4;
Silva
Silva
Silva
B&H pg. 4;
Silva
B&H pg. 4;
Silva
logos
One of the three forms of persuasive appeal. Logos is
concerned with the persuasive appeal to reason or logic.
Aristotle hoped that all rhetoric could be based on reason
alone, but humans were not capable of such “pure”
reason.
B& H pg. 4;
Silva