Rhetorical arguments everyone should know and recognize
I have too often heard people use the word “rhetorics” with a negative connotation (connotation: the emotional significance of a word unrelated to its definition, for example: bitch and woman both refer to a female, but one has a negative connotation and the other is neutral). I would like to make it clear that rhetoric is not necessarily negative, it is like a knife: there is nothing wrong with using it in the proper circumstances, just don’t stab people with it. Lloyd F. Bitzer said about rhetoric that: “it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world.” It is therefore not about getting your own will pushed through (though granted, a lot of the time that is how it is used), but it is about making a change. In this post, I will go over a couple of common types of arguments, explain them and give examples. If you are here as a writer I hope this (and maybe a few of my analysis posts) can help you create engaging and realistic arguments between your characters. If you are here in any none-writer capacity this should serve you well in everyday life – but like I said, just don’t stab people with it.
One more thing before we dive into it all though: if rhetoric is like a knife, where is the proper place to use it? What is the rhetorical version of the kitchen and vegetables? Well, Bitzer has an answer for that as well.
Bitzer’s rhetorical situation
Bitzer broke down the “situation” in which something can be considered rhetorical into three subparts. (Please don’t confuse this usage of the word rhetorical with the “rhetorical question” usage, they are quite different. In the case of this post “rhetorical” refers to the wording, intent and other aspects of communication which adheres to the above-mentioned definition of rhetoric, not to something which is so obvious it does not need answering).
Exigence is the reason for speaking. For the exigence to be rhetorical it must both be something that can be changed or influenced by speech. For example, the weather cannot be altered no matter how much we talk about it, whereas climate change “strongly invites the assistance of discourse producing public awareness, indignation, and action of the right kind.“
One thing that is funny to note here is that he restricts a rhetorical exigence to only that which can be or seeks to alter in positive ways – but in the case of for example the abortion debate both sides would argue that they are seeking “action of the right kind“. To situations where the rhetorical nature of the exigence is in question, Bitzer says that the choice to speak or not “is based mainly on the urgency of the exigence.“
Once you have a reason for talking/ writing, you also need an audience. Bitzer defines the audience required for a situation to be rhetorical as MOC or Mediators of Change. That means that you have to speak to the people capable of carrying out the actions needed to change that urgent imperfection that created your exigence in the first place. In other words, don’t complain to your dog about climate change.
In simple terms, constraints are all those things that separate the speaker/ writer from the audience. If we stick with the climate change example a constraint might be if your audience believes climate change is a lie, if they are big cooperations with a financial gain in not changing, or even if they believe the planet is doomed regardless of what we do.
The other half is the constraints you as the speaker/ writer brings to the table: is your pronunciation hard to understand, is your grammar less than adequate, do you yourself bring preconceptions to the table which might create a barrier between you and the people you are trying to reach.
Okay, that was rather technical, I am sorry about that, I tried to shorten it and make it more accessible (see the original text here if you don’t believe me). But, with all of that out of the way, let’s get down to a few argument types. I have picked out the ones I find most relevant, either because of their uniqueness in either being exceptionally bad or almost guaranteed to win you the argument or simply because they are widely used.
The ad hominem argument
My teacher defined this so eloquently with the sports metaphor: “going after the man instead of the ball”. If that isn’t enough to explain it to you, it means that instead of coming up with an argument of your own that relates to the exigence, you decide to make a comment about either your audience or you debate opponent. One example could be President Trump calling news stations who don’t agree with him “fake news”.
This argument is most often used when the speaker is backed up in a corner and cannot make a compelling argument on the case at hand. However, even if it is commonly used in that situation I doubt many people could refrain from using it if arguing with for example Hitler. There can be merit in this argument, but only if your own ethos (level of trustworthiness) is significantly higher than your opponent’s, and only if your audience agrees with that. As such it is a risky argument that might reflect poorly on you.
Authority argument
This is where you pull in an example of some stature – whether that is an idol, an expert, a quote, trends or anything else. The argument basically says that because these people say so, it is so. This argument in itself is neither a bad or a good argument, it all depends on the authority you chose and in which context you use it. For example, a neurosurgeon might have more authority than say Alfie Dayes (Youtuber, Pointless Blog) – unless. of course, the subject is online marketing and social media. That doesn’t mean that the neurosurgeon cannot know about online marketing or social media, it is even possible that the surgeon could know more than the YouTuber – but for people unfamiliar with either person the YouTuber will sound more authoritative.
Deductive arguments
This is when you take something general and assume it is the same in the specifics. For example, if it is true that most Americans only speak one language (=general), then you can assume that Ryan Higa (=specific) also only speaks one language (which isn’t actually true).
This is a dangerous argument to use as it can be quite offensive, and in most cases, you would be better off with the mass argument (see further below).
Inductive argument
The opposite of the deductive argument, and perhaps even more dangerous to use. This is where you go from the specific case and assume the general is the same – for example if you based your opinion of all Danes on just what you think about me. If you truly only have one data point to go on this argument might be acceptable, but tread carefully and be aware of what situation you are in. Maybe even try to do some research and get more data points (unless your intent is to sound like uneducated and biased, then, by all means, go for it).
Mass argument
Perhaps the safer version of the deductive argument. This is when children say things like “but all my friends can”, or when commercials say “10.000 people have tried and recommend this”. Basically, the authority you are drawing on is common people who the audience can relate to. That is how for example reviews work: this many people with the expert knowledge from having tested the object themselves say such and such/ give it this many stars. When used with logic this is a strong argument, it is the foundation of democracy, but if used without logic it can be easily dismissed with an “and if everyone else jumped off the cliff, would you jump too?”
Definition argument
Rather self-explanatory, but this is where you put a definition on a key term so that you can decide the connotation of the whole debate. In a one on one debate, the first person to clearly define something with a connotation that fits their narrative will have a clear upper hand since it is hard to come back from and redefine. In public arguments with thousands of voices, it is more difficult to be the first to define something – for example, both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are definition arguments. In the case of the abortion debate, both parties have labeled themselves with positive connotations that would seem absurd to be anti, in effect labeling themselves as the ones who are obviously right and the opposition as the ones who are obviously wrong. The trap here, however, is that with these definitions the debate has practically been shot down and instead replaced with ad hominem arguments such as “murderer” or “anti-feminist” – and since exigence requires the possibility of change through discourse this argument has basically killed the rhetorical situation that gave birth to it.
While a definition argument might be good for getting a few easy points in a debate and making the opponent work that much harder just to keep up with your lead, as you can see from the example above it can be quite damaging to the debate itself and alienate part of your audience (since talking only to people who already agree with you excludes mediators of change and thereby removes the rhetorical situation). Therefore always ask yourself if the person who uses this argument (fictional or real) truly believes in the definition, is trying to persuade people to see it from their point of view, or if they are simply trying to get ahead in this one debate and don’t care about the eventual outcome.
Slide argument
“Once you have said A, you must also say B” (or as my history teacher put it: “If you say USA you must also say USB”). This is again one of those middle ones, it is neither good nor bad in itself, but is only what you make of it. If you get on the slide, you have to ride it all the way to the end, there is no getting off – therefore you must be sure that you want to get on in the first place. It works both as discouraging “if I did it for you, I would have to do it for everyone” and as demanding “you did it for her, so you also have to do it for me”. Of course, it only works in situations where the parameters are the same, like giving both your children allowances or not discriminating between skin colors. If used in situations where the parameters are not the same the argument goes from being anti-discrimination to being pro-force (insert the word “sex” into the example above if you don’t follow yet).
And that is all the arguments I have for you – though I have just one last bonus phrase:
This is basically the worst tool you can use to make a good case, but sadly it is also an often used tool. Why? Well, because they can’t find anything better or don’t know of anything better.
I don’t know if this is an official term, but my teacher called them this, and it makes too much sense to want to change that. Basically, rubber words are words like:
adequate
fair
sufficient
acceptable
suitable
Like rubber, these words can be stretched to mean anything. “A school of acceptable standards in a suitable environment will be built if adequate funds and sufficient staff can be found within a fair timeframe” means absolutely nothing other than a school might eventually be built.
The sad thing is how often politicians use this little trick, and in doing so can avoid making any actual and real promises and yet still seem like they are promising you the world.
And that was all I had for you this time around. If this caught your attention you might enjoy some of the analysis I have done too, breaking apart scenes and identifying the argument types used and the effects they have in that specific scene. And if there is anything you think I missed feel free to let me know in the comments.
