Finding the "value" in the common topic of Degree

In chapter 4, Crowley and Hawhee define for us yet another part of “the system of invention” in terms of “topos” and “locis communis.” I agree with Jaclyn that the information regarding these two rhetorical phenomena, topic and commonplace, were pretty straightforward. Even so, however, I found Crowley and Hawhee’s examples of a systematic unraveling of “proof that could be inserted into any discourse” to be most interesting (118). Not only is the “universal art of investigation” an intriguing concept, I find it equally as satisfying to discover more about what this “art” can do for us as writers or thinkers (123).

A particular “common topic” of rhetoric that opened up my eyes was the concept of Degree—a lesser or greater degree. In terms of degree, you may claim a particular point to “establish the relations between degrees of goodness, justice, and so on,” but as you do this you simultaneously argue more than that single point (124). If you use the book’s example of the state of affairs—whether or not an economic decline is “better than recession since most people are still employed and can feed and clothe their families thus stimulating the economy by spending,” you are also inserting a particular cultural value within the same statement (125). In other words, proposing that recession is “good/better” because a family can enjoy basic needs (food and clothes), as well as “stimulating the economy,” your values are reflected in the ideals that if humans have those 2 things (food and clothes), they should be content. Your values are not explicitly stated, they are tacitly understood to be valid. The statement about stimulating economy is reflexive in that it also comments upon a particular value in economic stability. I have a hard time explaining these concepts sometimes, but I guess I’m saying that I’m finding it interesting to break-down the concept of the common topic of degree on a more personal level; your argument says something not only about what you are arguing for, but also who is doing the arguing and what particular ideological background that individual supports or reflects.
I’ll save more comments for class discussion.

Fear of Commonplace

In reading the pages about ideology and commonplace, I kept thinking about the following: how ideology and the commonplaces in a given culture or society need to be watched carefully. My reason is almost all of these can lead to extremism, fanaticism, fundamentalism, radicalism.

I can see how commonplaces such as patriotism (especially after 9/11) can be good for unifying a nation, however short-lived it may eventually be. But what concerns me is that once a commonplace reaches its pinnacle, any contrary thoughts are lashed out at and the person(s) who go against the commonplace are marginalized. The extreme grip held by the majority can blind all involved and can lead to some unwanted behaviors (such as the 'herd mentality'). It is amazing the actions that came about after 9/11; the increase in military recruitment, the decision to go to war, reactions of hatred toward Muslims and those of other religions/cultures.

Some of the results of the commonplaces held after 9/11 continue to linger 9 years later. The most recent examples include the reactions (sometimes violent) of individuals in New York City and Murfressboro, Tennesee, including prominent politicians, against proposed mosques in those locations. Another recent example includes the Preacher in Florida who was going to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11 by burning copies of the Koran. Thankfully these have not reached the widespread fervor seen after 9.11.

I haven't done research in to this but the illegal immigrant backlash which started about 3-4 years ago with such prominent figures as Lou Dobbs seemed to reach the status of commonplace and is starting to pick up again recently. For several months, CNN seemed to report almost on an hourly basis about how illegal immigrants were ruining America. It got to the point where it almost seemed like a propaganda campaign had been waged by several media outlets (mostly conservative) and politicians and seemed reminiscent of the Communist scares of the 50s and 60s.

I'm not proposing anything groundbreaking here but I think somewhere in our society, a better job needs to be done by individuals (the media, academia, politicians, etc) in preventing these extreme ideologies from becoming commonplace.

This chapter made me think in great detail about this and I hope this can lead to some sort of discussion whether in class or in comments.

The section most interesting for me in this chapter The Common Topics and The Commonplaces was Commonplaces and Ideology. It especially drew my attention when the authors affirm that “an interesting feature of commonplaces, which are so basic to a mode of thought and behavior, [is] that the people who subscribe to them may remain unaware of their allegiance to them”. (129). It made me think a lot about the importance of trying to be aware of those ideologies that with such power affect our lives and actions. (130). Furthermore, I question myself how pertinent would it be to make our communities aware of them from an early age. Should schools teach their students how to be conscious and thus critical about ideologies?

In the project where I used to work back in Colombia, we used to work with schools interested in including critical reception of media as part of their curriculum. The idea was to teach children how to produce media (radio and/or video) so they could understand how the language of media worked and that the information could be presented and used in different ways depending on the objectives and interests of the people behind the product.

Throughout this chapter I kept connecting rhetoric and media. Especially when Crowley and Hawhee mention the example about president Bush’s declaration of war against Iraq in 1991. I was surprised with what they comment about the effects that speech had on people. It shows how powerful rhetoric can be when it uses and bases its arguments in ideologies. (130). Those ideologies that are part of our thoughts without us even noticing them. That is exactly what happens with the power of media. We often discuss and study the media’s pervasiveness but is it really the power of media itself that we are examining or is it the power of rhetoric used in the media?

Another, similarity that I found between rhetoric and media is the importance of kayros. It is a very important aspect underlying the whole theory about Rhetoric just as it is when producing media. “You cannot forget your audience!”, it is a maxim... The first thing you need to determine when producing media is who you are talking to, their beliefs, their ages, their geographical situation. So I wonder, What are the differences between rhetoric and media? Is it just the language in this case understood as “the formalized symbols, signs, sounds, gestures, or the like used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, emotion, etc” (dictionary.com)? Is the technology used to communicate?

Another connection that I made based on the discussion about commonplaces and ideologies was with Research Methods class yesterday. We were discussing the concept of paradigm. The third definition of the word paradigm in the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines it as "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated”. Yesterday in class, the professor made us realize that when you do research within a specific paradigm of a discipline, the results of the analysis and interpretation of the data we collect may be completely different from those found if you observed and analysed the same date standing in a different paradigm. She suggested that as researchers we should seek to be aware of the principles of the paradigm from which we are observing, especially if we are trying to look at things from a different perspective and to contribute a new point of view on an issue. Again, the importance of being critical is stressed.

In this section as well, they comment extensively about the U.S. ideologies. I kept asking myself about Colombia’s ideologies as a country. I know for example that Catholicism has an important influence in our culture. We, as a country, seldom take responsibility for our own destiny. It is in God’s hands and we dedicate our time to pray and ask for better times in stead of thinking as the U.S. citizens would think “if you work hard enough, you’ll make a good living. If you are poor, you have only yourself to blame”. In our minds, God is either praising us or punishing us. However, as the authors affirm, commonplaces change (132) depending on historical circumstances, and Colombia may be moving from that ideology to a new one but I think this one still guides many of our attitudes and actions.

Finally, the last point I would like to comment which was not in this section but in the chapter, is that the authors keep telling us that through the usage of the techniques of invention a rhetor may find that the argument he/she is defending may not be the right one. I love when they say “Warning: through examination of an issue has been known to cause rhetors to change their minds.” Again, they remind us, while supporting the position they stated in the beginning of the book, that rhetoric is about citizenship, about thinking and giving priority to the common good of a community and not about feeding the ego of a rhetor by “winning” the argument. And, as I mentioned early, there are similarities with media. Media as well has a social responsibility building public opinion, procuring the transparency of the governments and societies and constructing democracy.

Another Piece of the Puzzle

I’ve always enjoyed the challenge of putting together puzzles. Even now, I could spend hours with the pieces spread before me on the table, systematically sorting and assembling what would eventually turn out to be a complete picture of “something.” If it was a particularly challenging puzzle, I could look at the box cover for clues as to how the pieces should fit together. It was fun.

As I read chapter 4, I began to analyze how Common Topics and Commonplaces fits in to what I imagine to be the “big picture” of rhetoric. But as I sort through the “pieces” we’ve already read and discussed in class, I stumble a bit: puzzle pieces are a particular shape and they fit together only one way. There is no overlap. Therefore, the eventual completion of this puzzle may be at risk, for this most recent “piece” seems to overlap with last week’s discussion on stasis theory, creating an unclear boundary. As my view of rhetoric so far is very abstract, I have little idea as to what the completed picture of rhetoric will look like, thus making it difficult to start assembling the pieces. (Perhaps assembly is premature - there isn’t even a box cover to sneak a peak!)

Moving on to the heart of the discussion, I found the content of this chapter to be both interesting and thought-provoking. Once again the authors use relevant examples to demonstrate their points. Based on the text, common topics and commonplaces are clearly important when constructing an argument. The more you know about a subject, the better you can defend your position. But while commonplaces are relatively clear, I am unclear about properly utilizing the questions under the topics of conjecture, degree, and possibility as opposed to those listed under stasis theory. Are they two different approaches to achieve the same goal? Or do you attempt to find stasis, then look at the topics? I look forward to clarification on this point during tonight’s class discussion.

The “big picture” at this point for me seems to be preparation. Taking into account everything we’ve discussed in class so far: kairos, stasis, audience, etc. reminds me of a quote I heard from one of my husband’s business associates: “Proper preparation prevents piss-poor performance.” (Who doesn’t love alliteration?) We can all relate to a time when we have been less than properly prepared in a situation, whether it be class work, a work presentation, or whatever. Chances are we suffered some type of consequence in that situation. So from an argument standpoint, the ability (and effort) to look at all sides of an argument and prepare for what the opposition may throw at you would seem to put you on solid ground in an argument or debate, thus minimizing negative consequences. But as we’ve discussed in previous classes, do people actually do this in everyday life? Certainly attorneys prepare in order to prosecute or defend a case, but to they prepare for anything that could come their way or simply prepare to support their own case? I know that politicians have teams to prepare them for speeches, debates, etc., so given all this support, why do they still never provide a direct answer to the question posed? (Or would that be considered a rhetorical question?) I suppose that would be a different puzzle altogether. So as I continue to collect the puzzle pieces that rhetoric has to offer, my hope remains that the picture will eventually become clear.

Knowledge is Power

“From a rhetorician’s point of view, nothing is to be gained by trying to determine which of these conjectures about political correctness is true. Persons who accept either of them believe they are true because each stems from and affirms a worldview—an ideology. What is important for rhetors is:

(a) to understand the commonplaces deployed in each of these conjectures and how they are implicated in ideological positions

(b) to determine that actual or potential effects of each conjecture in order to decide which causes the least public harm.” (123)

This excerpt added a new dimension to the work we had been previously doing: the element of power. Going through the invention process and stasis theory are not simply means to determine the best arguments or methods of attack to prove your opponent wrong. Rather, they are systematic approaches to determine whose arguments, standpoints, and values take precedence in the world.

In going through stasis theory, you are not only helping to better understand your own views, but all views concerning your position. As a result, a better understanding of the issues themselves should be established. This would undoubtedly factor into your personal view of ideologies and commonplaces.

Take “traditional family values” (123) and relate this commonplace to our discussion last week. The manner of progressing through stasis theory in relation to same sex marriage certainly results from the beliefs the rhetors have regarding this commonplace.

In fact, both Arcs and Sullivan question the role of this commonplace in persuading their audience to accept their positions on gay marriage. They both allude to the necessity of upholding the idea of traditional family values; yet, their visions for what this looks like are skewed based on their individual goals. Arcs claims that allowing gays to marry would pervert “traditional family values,” while Sullivan claims doing the same would establish similar traditional values in non-traditional family settings, thusly growing the role of the commonplace nationally.

This prompted me to revisit some my thoughts regarding the previous reading, questioning how knowledge and understanding can be developed if you know all of the questions and their answers going into an argument. Perhaps the goal then of stasis theory is not to persuade your opponent to take up your position, but to see which position is most beneficial to the betterment of your society as a whole.

Being able to make the argument that your position betters society allows you, as well as your argument, to gain power: more people will support you and take up the cause on your behalf. If this is able to occur and sustain, then someday your original position can develop into a commonplace. Hopefully, to the point where people start to take it for granted, because “people do not generally make arguments about values that are so fundamental to their belief systems that they literally, “go without saying” or can be “taken for granted” (131).

Which leads me to the most impacting point of this reading: the fact that if “people were willing to do verbal and physical battle over this value suggests that its status as a commonplace was then in jeopardy” (131). This brought me back to the earlier chapters on kairos and the need to understand the timing and the context of your arguments.

By doing so, by taking into account the commonplaces and ideologies around which you are traveling through stasis theory, you can become powerful.

I can’t help but remember the popular 80s-90s PSA: Knowledge is Power. Although, in this case, I can’t help but think that language is power, or perhaps to go one step further, rhetoric is power. But then really, aren’t they saying the same thing?

I find the entire idea of commonplaces and ideology to be very interesting. It is fascinating to see how much of an impact a person’s upbringing and the people that they choice to surround themselves with has on their lives. It is also astounding how these ideologies do transform as societal expectations vary throughout time. The author discusses how the American public accepted the war in Iraq in 1991 due to the fact that the president’s rhetoricians associated the war with American values (133). The next war in Iraq was not as successful because the American public did not understand the reason (134). Therefore, proving that commonplace and ideologies do change. However, I find it even more intriguing that propaganda and the manipulation of words make such an impact in our present day, technological advanced society.
Continuing on this ideology rant, the second rhetorical activity, found on pages 152-153, sparked my curiosity. The exercise encourages the participant to write down bumper stickers located on vehicles in a large parking lot. You should then try to figure out the ideologies represented through the bumper stickers. Well, I took a stroll through the student parking lot at West Perry High School at the end of school one day this past week. I checked out a variety of cars and trucks, which varied in make, model, and year. I decided to focus strictly on bumper stickers and not on the clear window decals. Most of those were related to colleges and sports teams. It looked as if some of the vehicles belonged to students whereas others gave off the impression that they may be borrowing mom or dad’s car, especially the one that stated, “I’m Proud of my Eagle Scouts.” There were quite a few “West Perry Mustang” bumper stickers, some which were generic and others that supported athletics, or the band. There were quite a few bumper stickers advertising for different car parts and brands. “Mazda Speed,” and “Flying Miata” were located on a Mazda, which was obviously not shocking. One truck was sporting a “Flomaster Exhaust Sytem” and a “K&G Air filters” stickers. “Kiss Me I’m Irish” was informing people of this student’s heritage, or else she just likes to be kissed. There was a car with the ever so popular “OBX” sticker, which you can now find with a plethora of letters representing different locations. I was not surprised when I saw a “Proud Beef Producer” sticker, due to the large amount of farms in the western end of the county. Then, exactly what I was hoping would not happen, happened. The bumper stickers found on the cars completely supported all of the redneck, conservative stereotypes that Perry County is unfortunately known for. I saw three different cars with “NRA” stickers, along with an “I’d rather be bow hunting” sticker. The “Terrorist Hunting Permit” also stands out in my mind. Finally, there were a few political stickers. Judging by the previous bumper stickers, it was not astonishing to see “Ted Nugent for President.” There was also an “Impeach Obama” one as well. Then, I was happy to catch a car, with one of my students behind the wheel, with an “Obama ‘08” sticker. I asked her whose car it was and she said that it belonged to her mother. I then asked her if her mother grew up in the area and I was informed that her mother was an immigrant from Columbia. I was hoping that it was a local with that one. So, unfortunately the cars let me down. They fed into all of the set ideologies that many outsiders have of those country kids. I am doubtful that the ideologies will change anytime soon; however, I did have fun investigating.

Digging your heels in often leads to foot injuries

One of the most insightful points made by the the Common Topics and the Commonplaces chapter in ARCS was made in the final two sentences of the Common Topic of Greater/Lesser (Degree) section. "...Rhetors who use the topics vigorously and thoroughly," the chapter reads, "must be prepared to turn up arguments that they do not like. Warning: thorough examination of an issue has been known to cause rhetors to change their minds" (126). As has come up in class discussion previously, I feel strongly that this is something most individuals tend to ignore when either making an argument, listening to one being made to them, or simply holding any opinion or belief structure.

To have this point clearly illustrated, one need only watch any political debate or pseudo-debate talk show. The individuals speaking are either politicians or pundits who are making an argument, whether it be on a common topic or a special one. These rhetors (what they unfortunately must be referred to as, given their job descriptions) will make their point but refuse to address those made by their opposition. They will instead simply refer back to their original argument/point and thus the argument will come to an issue regarding stasis.
The obvious problem is the lack of true discourse between the involved parties. When observed closer, there isn't even engagement taking place. There are basic surface facts used by each side to illustrate their viewpoints, but even the facts used will not be up for discussion.
My favorite example of a debate show (and one I used to watch on a daily basis) is the ESPN sportswriter show Around the Horn. In this program, sports journalists from four different regions (often the northeast, midwest, west, and south) would all weigh in on a given topic via satellite. They could (and would, unlike in political debate) engae each other directly in this way and all would have statistics and analysis to back up their viewpoints. In the six years I was a religious viewer of the program, however, not once did I witness one of the panel member's minds change based on an argument made by one of his co-panelists. These are all men and women discussing the exact same topic with numerous statistical means of measurement at their disposal and still their minds are dead set. It didn't stop there though. Not only did none of them ever have their opinion swayed publicly, but they rarely ever, if it happened at all, admitted that they even could possibly be wrong in their take on the matter.
It comes back once again to the view that being steadfast in an opinion shows conviction, strength of will and dependability. Discoursal rhetoric can only advance so far without both parties being willing to have their opinions altered. Truly what is the point of arguing with someone who cannot be swayed, no matter whether they are proven to be correct or incorrect? This is not an attitude that should be embraced by society. This steadfast stance on opinions cannot allow us to even have a productive discussion on a given matter, let alone figure out possible solutions or middle-grounds.
The quote in question states that rhetors MUST be able to turn up arguments that go against their argument/opinion/belief structure. If they are not able to incorporate such things, what sort of users of rhetoric are they?
I have had my opinion changed many times on many matters. Hell, even my own religious stance (Agnostic) is one that acknowledges the inability to take a strong stance. Agnosticism is essentially a theological shrug. I don't know the answers to these questions, and none of us can anyway, so what's the use in holding rigid patterns of thought in regards to them? These are beliefs people are willing to die and kill for...and yet, they can only believe they are correct. There (at present) is no way to prove or disprove any particular religion. So why believe I'm right and everyone else is wrong? That'd be downright arrogant of me.
And that's the problem: human arrogance. Everyone believes that they way they think is undoubtedly correct. Even I've been guilty of this at one time or another. But I strive to be better and more accepting of my own mental fallibility. This is a trait that, sadly, I do not see represented enough in contemporary society. I never want to stop learning, even if it changes what I think, feel or believe. Can this attitude ever become more prevalent in the 21st century?
Given the divisive nature of both individuals and groups/parties, especially in modern-day America, I have a difficult time holding out hope for this level of arrogance to dissipate.

Trying to make sense of stasis theory, topics, and commonplaces: A rhetorical conundrum

Reading chapter 4 from Crowley and Hawhee’s Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, I found myself questioning, and perhaps a little confused by, the relationship between the topics and the stasis questions, which were the focus of our discussion last week. It would seem, by the authors’ discussion, that both the topics and the stasis questions are inventive devices, ways to find what is at issue in an argument, but to a great degree, they seem to be very similar. How do we distinguish one from another?

Perhaps it is the likeness in wording of the common topics and the stasis questions that serves to confuse. For example, the first of the common topics that were categorized by Aristotle seeks to examine whether or not something has occurred, precisely what the stasis questions of conjecture do. The second common topic looks at whether something “is greater or smaller than another thing” (120). In this case, it appears that the rhetor is engaged in evaluation, again an issue raised by the stasis questions, specifically those of quality. Last, the third common topic asks “what is (and is not) possible” (120). To me that invokes the stasis questions regarding policy, with the questions helping the rhetor decide if a need for a policy or change in a policy is called for. Do the common topics then generate from this discussion a closer look at what policy should then be put into place, with the decision ultimately resting on the question of whether or not enacting such a policy is possible?

In trying to understand how these two invention systems work, I keep coming back to this question: Are the stasis questions the means by which the rhetor finds his way to the common topics for a particular issue? In other words, we employ the stasis theory to find the point at which an argument arises for an issue. This would make sense when we define the term topic, as the text does, as “the location where arguments are located.” So, the stasis questions help us find our way to the common topics? Then we use the common topics to discover the proofs that will best support the rhetor’s position? And yet, Crowley and Hawhee point out that ancient rhetoricians’ use of the term topic bears little resemblance the manner in which we use the term today (118). Hmm! Perhaps fatigue is taking a toll, but did anyone else find themselves somewhat challenged by this seeming overlap. Does anyone see an effective means of distinction between the two?

Okay, so then let’s move on to the commonplaces. Crowley and Hawhee tell us that in ancient times the terms topics and commonplaces were used interchangeably, but they opt to make a distinction between them. They refer to the topics as “any specific procedure that generates argument, such as definition and division or compare and contrast” and the commonplaces as “statements that circulate within ideologies” (118). While I don’t wish to return at this point to the topics, this definition seems to point toward the common modes of writing--just an observation.

Somehow, though, the commonplaces seem to make more sense and appear more useful. In fact, as I continued to read the segments of the chapter dealing with the commonplaces, I kept thinking that the commonplaces sounded an awful lot like assumptions, facts or statements that require no proof because they are generally accepted to be true or are taken for granted. Alas, I then came upon the authors’ assertion that “[c]ommonplaces are, literally, ‘taken for granted’—they are statements that everyone assumes already to be satisfactorily proven” (131). So it looks like I am on the right track there.

Argument then is apt to originate from the location where these assumptions are not accepted, which leads to another important realization—audience must not be overlooked in argumentation. Since Crowley and Hawhee note that the “persuasive power of rhetorical commonplaces depends upon the fact that they express assumptions held in common by people who subscribe to a given ideology” (132), then to make these assumptions without confirming that this commonly held belief exists may lead to a challenge of those assumptions. And perhaps this begins to answer the question that is posed within the rhetorical activities on p. 152, that is, what happens when a commonplace is not commonplace enough?

ARCS Chapter 4

I have to say that after reading the chapter, I feel like I don’t have a lot to say. The chapter did a pretty straight-forward job of defining topics and commonplaces and of providing examples.

The only place where I really get confused is when, on page 140, the suggestion is made to use common topics and commonplaces to invent arguments. I feel that the stasis theory thoroughly covered all of the means of invention, and when the book goes on to work through its extended example, my mind just goes “stasis, stasis, stasis!!!” I really don’t see how the two are different until we get to the common topic of possibility.

Nevertheless, an example of topics came to my mind as I was working through the chapter (or is it an example of stasis – since I am unclear on the difference, I may be thinking of the completely wrong thing.) I was reading an issue of People Magazine, and I came across a rather rhetorical advertisement by this group that aimed to show readers that the internet would not affect the future of magazines. The advertisement began with a headline that was something along the lines of: “Will the internet kill magazines?” And then below it, “Did instant coffee kill coffee?” My mind instantly jumped to two immediate conclusions: One, instant coffee is gross so of course it didn’t “kill” coffee, and two, how is this comparison going to be made?
It seems to me that the ad used a lot of statistics which I am assuming is a common indicator of degree. (What is greater than the norm, what is lesser than the norm, etc.) It seems to me that degree, then, is a pretty solid way to argue a point when backed up with statistics.

I also see now after going through this exercise that I was thinking of stasis as well – the main problem with the argument that sticks out to me is that Instant coffee is a form of coffee, so we are talking about the same thing. Whereas the internet and magazines are both part of media, but the internet is dynamic media and magazines are print media. The two can’t really be compared, in my opinion, for several reasons that deal with the facts they listed in the advertisement.

The most blatant of the logic flaws is the statistic on ad recall. The internet is so new that advertisements are still trying to find their niche. This statistic also neglects the idea that advertisement campaigns can span TV, radio, magazines, AND the internet. So I see that a major flaw in logos.

To get back on topic, the chapter is titled “The Common Topics and the Commonplaces: Finding the Available Means,” and the advertisement I pointed out is a good example of how the “common means” can be manipulated in arguments, even when facts are used in the form of statistics.

Getting at the Meat of the Matter

After reading this week’s assignment, I was struck with the idea about how common topics and commonplaces help one get to the meat of an issue. Last week, we talked about basically debating a topic and how we are to go about doing it. We talked about exploring not only all the pro aspects of a particular issue but also all the con or negative comebacks so that we would be prepared to refute the claim. We also talked about whether one should address an issue from a general or specific standpoint. When we read the two articles, we were better able to debate the issue and even highlighted specific examples from both articles to validate a particular point. This week’s chapter basically summed up the notion of how a debater can get right to the heart of a matter. Commonplaces and topics allow the debater to have a basis for not only his or her argument but also for the other side’s perspective. Conjecture, degree and possibility allow a debater to really highlight the key point(s) of an issue and are able to point out what really is the issue that needs to be discussed. In this blog, I will try to articulate this point.


The past few weeks, it seems that we have been talking about the general ideals of rhetoric and how to explore and examine one broad topic and than discuss it at large. This is fine for a Sunday dinner but most professions and individuals like to really examine a facet of an issue, especially the area that seems to draw the most criticism or is hotly contested. Ideologies allow debaters to stand on clearly defined sides of an issue. All the -ists and -isms positions are known and thus, one can understand what their viewpoint on an issue will be. Thus, one is really able to debate a specific issue from a particular stance and the debater will have a better defense if he or she is well aware of their opponent’s ideological slant. After all, Aristotle believed “that Rhetors need a good deal of specific knowledge to argue from specific topics” (Crowley and Hawhee 121). Hence, the role of conjecture, degree and possibility allows one to argue with clear and concrete knowledge on a distinct issue.

By understanding and answering the major (general) question associated with conjecture, degree and possibility, the rhetor is able get at the key points of his or her central argument. By asking if a situation “has (or has not) occurred or will (or will not) occur” the rhetor has now unlocked other (specific) questions that will allow the rhetor to not only communicate his or her position but also can be used to answer what the alternative perspective will answer to the same set of questions (121). Once one has exhausted all the answers to the questions, the rhetor can move on to the next general question and specific subset questions about degree and so on. At the end, the rhetor will have a better handle on the case and will be better able to present and defend his or her position. After reading this chapter, I noticed that at times, one area (conjecture, degree or possibility) played more of a primary role in the eventual outcome of a debate. Thus, each time one debates, he or she will use a different method to reach the most appropriate outcome.


In this chapter, I saw how the guidelines for debating correlate well with writing objectives. Writing and debating are two areas that are situational. Both writing and debating thrive on partaking of the moment and using specific examples to make a precise point. In order to write or debate one must be willing to explore and examine an issue from multiple perspectives before deciding which style is the best way to present his or her case. Hence, both debating and writing’s main focus is that of the content (or heart of the matter) before style (presentation) which allows the rhetor or writer to fully be knowledgeable in his or her argument. Quintilian who supports this notion of constantly evolving arguments states that “not every kind of argument can be derived from every circumstance, and consequently our search requires discrimination” (117). So lets allow our students to enjoy the chaotic, messy, frustrating but ultimately rewarding journey of getting at the heart of a particular matter. Otherwise, they will never learn how to move from debating general topics to specific situations.

I really enjoyed this chapter. I thought it was very informative and insightful. I look forward to Thursday night’s discussion!