Stasis and Rhetorical "Balance"

I don’t want to over-simplify anything, but this reading, to me, helped me understand the consequences of a well prepared argument. Not only is it important for one to consider the logic of one’s argument, it is equally critical to assess the structural apparatus of an argument. In other words, statis gives us a “blue-print” of sorts to assemble a sound rhetorical argument. If rhetoric is a vehicle of knowledge, of building upon ideas and asking further questions beyond the topic of interest, then perhaps statis is the underbelly of this overall process. That is to say, a systematic procedure to unveil one’s contention is equally as important as the argument, itself. Stasis implies a method in which allows for two contending ideas to be argued in a systematic fashion while inhibits—rather than prohibits—the free-flow of thoughts and ideas. In the example given in the book regarding abortion, I believe that Crowley and Hawhee want us to understand that even though 2 conflicting points of view may never cease to exist, the idea of stasis underlies the ability for one to rationalize each argument.
(I feel like I am talking in circles!) I feel like I understand the chapter, but feel even more as though a closer look and a classroom discussion will help me understand the entire concept better.
On a side note, I kind of chuckle to myself remembering an 8th grade debate assignment. My team had been charged with the issue of “pro-hunting versus anti-hunting.” I recall making points about population control, crop damage, etc. A member from the opposing team began an argument about illegal hunting. If we’re introducing the ideals of stasis here, the topic of discussion was not about illegal hunting, it was whether or not an individual has the right to hunt. Therefore, we can apply the method of asking particular questions and making logical (and arguable) statements: Hunting is wrong because killing animals is wrong. Hunting is not wrong because animals do not have the same rights to existence as humans. The point of my memory here is that I can see, now, that any and all points are arguable, but it is most important to make sure there is a linear path to argue (for or against) a particular point. If your opponent says: Hunting is acceptable because it controls animal population; it is probably not a solid argument to say: Hunting is wrong because people kill animals illegally. Those two points do not counterbalance the other—aha! The notion of balance is key. I get it.
I look forward to seeing everyone in class tonight!