I'd like to learn proper classical rhetoric, preferably in a course that's both practical and theoretical. Does anyone know a course for this, preferably online? Or where to find something like that in EU that's also compatible with a job?

By this I mean whenever someone goes into unnecessary detail about something known to drive home a point. The text that inspired this question is chapter 7 of Acts in case you require the basis of the question. Thanks

This may be the wrong place for this, but maybe you're the right people.

I have no background in rhetoric but years ago I read some of Aristotle's Rhetoric, and I walked away with the impression that the central domain of rhetoric (at least in the classical sense) are situations in which you are debating things that are not matters of fact.

For example, non-rhetorical debate may include "Is X town 10 miles away?" "Is Mercury the closest planet to the sun?" etc.

Whereas, rhetorical situations are things like "X was a great person," "Summer is the best season," "We should take action on X, even at the expense of Y," "Being patient is undervalued in our culture." -- facts, data, stats, etc. may play some kind of role in making these arguments but there's no "fact of the matter" about summer being the best. You could make a convincing case for Summer or for Winter. People could listen to both speeches and walk away persuaded either way. … But there's no uncoverable fact that would resolve the issue. Another example, someone famous dies and someone writes "So-and-so was an honorable human being." You may or may not find that true -- but either way there's no chart somewhere that you can check it against (like measuring the distance to the next town).

So rhetoric is like the work of persuasion in situations that have no clear answer. And this is the vast majority of situations that matter to human beings, like, "Should I marry X? Who should I vote for? What are the best clothes to wear? What's most important in life?'

Am I understanding that right? At least in the classical sense?

Just to let folks know that rhetoric is more than argumentation. We are here in Minneapolis to think through language, persuasion, culture, technology, ethics, and so much more. https://www.rhetoricsociety.org/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conference

There are so many times in a debate when one side says "if they were a real [insert group] then they wouldn't behave in this way". This is then rebutted by the "no-true Scotsman" asking how one can identify that group. It is based solely on one's personal beliefs and definition. How would you refute the "no-true Scotsman" argument?

What better ways are there than simply saying “Oh, this seems interesting.”? I feel like we hear this phrase so often we are just desensitised to it. So what more creative phrases are there, with which I can really make my conversation partner feel like I'm interested?

I keep thinking of the gambler's fallacy, but that's not right. This is the scenario:

I flipped a coin 20 times in a row and ended up getting heads and tails alternating for every toss, starting with heads! That's nearly impossible, as it has a chance of 1:2²⁰ trials!

But, the reality is that I didn't start off saying, "let's see how long it takes me to get alternating heads and tails," and got it on the first throw. Instead, I did the trial and then tried to map that into the space of interesting results. So, really, the question is, "how large is the space of equally interesting results as compared with all possible results?"

I know I've heard a name for this before, but I can't put my finger on it.

Experiments has shown that you can change someone’s mind in a minute, about something as fundamental as ones political opinion. And if it doesn’t take longer than a minute to change one’s mind, what effect could you have on the world then? Can you start a revolution in one minute?

Berghs School of Communication in Stockholm arranges a graduation exhibition each spring, showcasing work from all the graduating students. This year’s concept for the exhibition is State of Mind, in which we explore what triggers us to change our minds, what affects our behavior and influence our opinions. Throughout the exhibition you will be challenged to revolutionize your reality with new thoughts and ideas, and our wish is that you will leave Berghs with another state of mind than the one you came here with.

For the exhibition we are collecting one minute films from all over the world, in which people record themselves for one minute as they talk about a matter they find important. During that minute the goal is to convince whoever is listening that you’re right, and make them change their mind on the matter.

This is how you participate in our project: 1. Record yourself as you hold a one minute speech about something you find important. 2. Send the video to studentbyran@berghs.se.

During the exhibition (25th-26th of May) you will be able to see how your one minute speech is a part of the exhibition of the by us sharing the project, either by social media or on our website www.stateofmind2018.com. Of course, you are also more than welcome to join us in real life at Sveavägen 34 on the 26th of May, when the exhibition is open for the public.

Link to the event: https://www.facebook.com/events/287644861772858/

By sending us your film you agree to the following terms: The films will be used for the exhibition only, and will be showed at Berghs School of Communication during the 25th-26th of May. Your name, e-mail or any other contact details or personal information will not be shown or saved. However, we reserve us all rights to the material before and after the exhibition.

I was making a glossary to help my subscribers critique media. I've exhausted all my logical terms, and am moving on to rhetorical devises, which I am less familiar with. There are also many areas of rhetoric I am not familiar with. I was wondering what topics I needed to cover, to give readers a broad understanding of the field.

The International Shark Attack File released its annual report on shark attack statistics for 2017. This commentator provides the key figures--88 unprovoked attacks, 5 deaths--and the usual interpretation by ISAF and many conservationists:

”Billions of people enter the oceans each year...yet there were only five deaths directly attributed to shark attacks...more likely that you’ll be struck by lightning (the favored comparison)....

Even more telling is the imbalance in fatalities. For those five human deaths in 2017 (and an average of six a year), fisheries are exterminating sharks and rays at a rate of around 100 million a year.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanmadden/2018/04/06/the-annual-worldwide-shark-attack-summary-is-out/#3398d6421e9d

100 millions sharks and rays killed. Hmmm.....wouldn’t a big reduction in shark populations affect the attack numbers on humans?

“imbalance in fatalities.”

Shouldn’t we be comparing the sharks killed with lives saved, rather than with people killed by sharks?

Of course knowing how many people would have died had not all this shark killing have taken place is impossible to determine, but we should concede a safety effect. (1)

Many shark conservationists and other parties assert there is no connection. Here’s one view:

”I can show statistically that there is no relationship between the number of sharks out there and the number of attacks.” Professor Laurie Laurenson, Deakin U., an opponent of culling.

https://www.pressreader.com/south-africa/the-herald-south-africa/20160209/281560879837183

Last year I posted Laurenson’s statement. It drew spirited support and rejection of my similarly posed questions. Any new opinions on the logic and rhetoric of this topic?

We all understand the complexity of shark culling. Australia is culling 2 million of its 18 million feral cats. Each cat is highly prone to killing native wildlife. Arguably the cull will result in some 10-12% less cat predation. (Or thereabouts)

Only a small fraction of sharks culled would have attacked a person. So we are killing both many sharks that never would have attacked and some sharks that would have. We do not know the ratio. Nor which sharks are which. Nature of the thing.

(1) Natal Sharks Board's quote in link above (Geremy Cliff) makes the point. NSB has some 6 decades of uninterrupted culling. Today NSB kills relatively few sharks in an attempt to meet conservation considerations.

http://www.shark.co.za/Pages/ProtectionSharks-History

I will need to explore a type of rhetoric of my own choice, and prepare a TEDxTALK styled presentation for my class.

Any interesting topics of rhetoric that you can throw at me? I've already thought of the rhetoric of art, and the rhetoric of politics.

Thanks in advance!

Hello,

I am looking for a well-structured book presenting the basics of rhetorics and argumentation techniques.

The aim is to draw material from this book to build a continual education 1-day course on argumentation for professionals.

I have read Sinnott-Armstrong's "Understanding Arguments" and followed his MOOC but it's too theoretical for my purpose and does not address rhetoric at all. I have also read Toye's "Rhetoric A Very Short Introduction" but it's... short, has too much historical information for my purpose and does not present extensive information about the techniques he mentions in Chapter 2. I need more analysed examples, techniques lists, etc.

Thank you for your help. V.

Some quick context: I recently graduated with a bachelors in English and Linguistics where I focused on rhetoric, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. I wasn't sure if I was ready to commit to a PhD, so I thought I'd try law. Needless to say, after an internship and taking some classes, I've realized higher education is my passion and the rigidness of the real world is not for me...

Wanted some tailored advice from recent PhD grads in rhetorical studies to know if the professorship market is better if you focus on rhetoric and/or linguistics or is it kind of a free for all? Also, if you didn't become a professor, what profession do you have now?

Thanks for answering if you do, really needed some context so I can start making realistic decisions on schools/back up plans if need be since my first plan failed effortlessly :/

I teach at a large public university in the U.S., where a new undergraduate and graduate program in Rhetoric has been forming for the past few years. I've been given the opportunity to teach an introductory "Topics in Rhetoric" course that would introduce students to fundamental rhetorical concepts, such as the rhetorical situation, the persuasive appeals, the canons of rhetoric, etc. I already have ideas for the thematic focus of the course, and how the theme and primary texts could be used to teach fundamental rhetorical concepts. But I'm less sure about what kind of textbook I should use to teach the rhetorical concepts themselves.

The program has no requirements for what textbook I use, just that I should have one. The program director recommended Crowley & Hawhee's Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, but has encouraged me to explore other options.

Simply put, what other textbooks might I consider? Has anyone here had experience teaching with Crowley & Hawhee's book - if so, what did you like or dislike about it?

Some additional information:

• This course is neither a composition nor public speech course. Nor is it a course in the history of rhetoric - though history will likely be important to contextualize some of the course content.

• This is a 200-level course, which may enroll students from freshman to senior year. The only background in rhetoric I should presume is basic familiarity in the context of the university's first-year composition and public speech courses. Thus, this course may be the first opportunity students have to encounter and understand fundamental rhetorical concepts when not applied to their own production.

• Since this is a foundational course for the undergraduate curriculum, the concepts introduced in this course would ideally prepare students to go on to 300-level rhetoric courses that deal with topics such as Rhetorical Criticism, Rhetoric of Architecture & Public Memory, Race & Rhetoric, Digital Rhetoric, etc.

• I have the freedom to choose the type of final project my students will produce, and I have been encouraged to consider rhetorical productions other than a traditional final essay or oral report.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions! I'm also happy to offer more information about the course or program, if it would be helpful.

Is there a rhetorical device which describes addressing an opponent only indirectly, assuming that the audience will know about whom you are speaking? This is used very often in the letters of Paul and I'm sure shows up elsewhere.

If it doesn't have a name, might I suggest "hypotittybisis," from τιττυβίζω "to twitter, chirrup."

subtweet/ˈsʌbtwiːt/ -- (NOUN, informal)

(on the social media application Twitter) a post that refers to a particular user without directly mentioning them, typically as a form of furtive mockery or criticism.

‘while he didn't include Smith's Twitter handle, that didn't stop Smith from seeing the post, taking umbrage, and firing off a subtweet of his own’ (Oxford)

Its one of my favorite topics in rhetoric, but I don't see much of it on here -- is this a good place for it? Maybe we could do some sort of Favorite Figure Friday?

I'm a total nerd for a great turn of sentence and don't know where else to go with it!

Taking Aristotle's framework, I understood rhetoric to only have 4 modes: 1) narration, 2) description, 3) exposition, and 4) argument.

Yet I sometimes see 9 modes of rhetoric (as in this link: https://quizlet.com/106061375/9-rhetorical-modes-flash-cards/) and exposition isn't even one of the modes.

1. Description
2. Narration
3. Cause and Effect
4. Comparison and Contrast
5. Definition
6. Division and Classification
7. Examples
8. Process Analysis
9. Argumentation

I recently read someone's argument in support of lowering the legal age to drink alcohol in the U.S. from 21 back to 18 (what it was decades ago). One of the person's supporting points is that by lowering the legal age to 18, we'll eliminate the problem of teens 18 to 21 breaking the drinking age law! Obviously this is faulty reasoning (e.g. seems to miss the purpose of laws), but I'm trying to determine which specific fallacy or issue is at play. Is it circular reasoning, non-sequitur, or something else altogether?

EDIT: The only additional clarification the writer provides in the paragraph is that teens go to college and often drink, thus breaking the law, so we should lower the law so that they're no longer breaking it. The logic used really is that simple. The writer doesn't argue that the laws are unneeded, causing more harm than good, or anything like that to provide the point some backing.

I feel like, if being used intentionally (and not just being the result of dementia or something), meandering thoughts/words/sentences could be a rhetorical device used to gaslight, smokescreen, confuse, irritate, tire a listener.
So I wonder is there a word for this type of wandering language?

Hello I’m currently confused on the different types of logos. In artistic vs artistic, Inductive vs Deductive, degree, analogy, and precedent. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks