One precondition for debate is that it be about something. This scrap of conventional wisdom has been contemplated since at least the time of Hermagoras in the second century BCE, from whom a whole theory of the about has arisen: stasis theory. Michael Hoppmann wrote in the pages of this journal that stasis has been "the backbone of rhetorical theory" for over two millennia. Perhaps ironically, precisely how stasis should be understood is itself a topic for debate, although one that (...) Hoppmann claims has been increasingly elided in the rhetorical canon. The basic opposition, borrowing from A. Theodorakakou, is between a model of stasis as prior issue and... (shrink)

Through the example of a paradigmatic deliberative speech from classical oratory, the paper addresses two fundamental questions of teaching rhetorical reasoning. First, the paper shows that a speech from ancient Greek and Roman political or judicial oratory could provide effective means to teach a variety of argumentation skills, the recognition of fallacies and an awareness of biases in the target audience. Second, the paper uses the speech to consider an elusive problem of rhetorical or critical reasoning instruction, namely how students (...) may use historical models to adapt their knowledge of a case to real-life situations, where a large number of uncertain variables demands a constant awareness of the conditions affecting the audience`s decision and may require a swift change in the argumentative strategy. The paper will argue that the application of a new model of strategic reasoning called heuristic rhetoric to Cicero`s speech could illustrate a workable solution to both problems. (shrink)

This article argues that the theoretical concept of meta-argumentative fallacy is useful. The authors argue for this along two lines. The first is that with the concept, the authors may clarify the concept of meta-argumentation. That is, by theorizing where meta-argument goes wrong, the authors may capture the norms of this level of argumentation. The second is that the concept of meta-argumentative fallacies provides an explanatory model for a variety of errors in argument otherwise difficult to theorize. The authors take (...) three as exemplary: the straw man, both sides, and free speech fallacies. (shrink)