Rhetoric comes from the Greek rhetorikos (ῥητορική) and refers to the ability to use language effectively. Ancient scholars taught that persuasive speech depends on three intertwined appeals: logos (reason), ethos (the speaker’s credibility) and pathos (emotional connection).



Rhetoric Debates, What Are those?



In debates these appeals, together with numerous stylistic devices, become the tools through which speakers frame issues, construct identities and motivate audiences. Modern debates, from classroom discussions to political contests and legal advocacy, still draw on these classical foundations while also operating in a digital, cross‑cultural and increasingly AI‑mediated environment.



We wrote this article to explore what rhetoric is, its place in debate, the difference between ethical and unethical persuasion, the cross‑cultural dimensions of rhetoric and predictions for its future.



What is rhetoric?



Classically, rhetoric is “the skillful use of language to persuade or argue”. Aristotle saw rhetoric not as trickery but as a civic art that uses common knowledge and everyday examples to address practical issues before a public audience.



Classical appeals and their functions

1. The Logos appeals to the audience’s sense of logic and evidence; arguments are structured through deductive and inductive reasoning, analogies and cause‑and‑effect, statistics, examples, comparisons, factual reasoning.
2. The Ethos establishes the speaker’s character, expertise and integrity; builds trust self‑presentation, citing credentials, shared values
3. The Pathos appeals to emotions and shared values; aims to elicit empathy or anger vivid storytelling, expressive language, loaded words



Effective rhetoric also depends on the rhetorical situation, the context, audience, purpose and genre of a communication. Rhetorical awareness helps speakers tailor their message ethically and interpret others’ messages more critically.



Rhetoric’s place in debate



Debate is sometimes defined as an argumentative dialogue seeking to persuade an audience or adjudicator about the merits of competing positions. Rhetoric provides the toolbox for debaters: without it, arguments may be logical but dull; with it, they become memorable and motivating. Debaters rely on logical arguments (logos), credibility and personal narratives (ethos) and appeals to emotion or shared values (pathos). Even everyday discussions use rhetorical devices such as metaphors, analogies, pronoun shifts, repetition and three‑part lists to frame arguments and highlight certain perspectives.



In political debates, rhetoric can shape public opinion and even “build or destroy societies”. Aristotelian rhetoric teaches that the goal is not merely to win but to deliberate in pursuit of the common good. Yet modern debates often prioritize spectacle over substance; scholars note that normative expectations of politeness, evidence and truth have been eroded by participants who interrupt, attack opponents and make unverified claims.



For example, in U.S. presidential debates before 2016 candidates were expected to “lay out a clear agenda” and avoid outright falsehoods. Donald Trump’s nationalist‑populist rhetoric broke these norms by attacking opponents, regularly making false statements and appealing to fear and resentment.



While such norm‑breaking mobilized some voters, it also highlighted how rhetoric can be weaponized.



Rhetorical devices and fallacies



In debates, you can sometimes notice a wide repertoire of rhetorical devices to emphasize points, simplify complex ideas and appeal to audiences. Common devices include:



1. Metaphor and analogy – transfer meaning from one domain to another; analogies compare a new situation to a familiar one.
2. Pronoun shifts – using “we” to create solidarity or “they” to distance opponents.
3. Repetition and triads – repeating words or listing three items for emphasis.
4. Sound bites and alliteration – concise phrases crafted for media clips.
5. Hyperbole – deliberate exaggeration, common in populist rhetoric.



However, rhetorical power can shade into manipulation. Logical fallacies are faulty arguments that exploit cognitive shortcuts. A fallacy may be unintentional or a deliberate attempt to mislead.



Common fallacies include:



1. Straw man – misrepresenting an opponent’s view to make it easier to attack.
2. Red herring – diverting attention from the main issue with an unrelated point.
3. Appeal to emotion/populum – manipulating emotions rather than presenting evidence.
4. Appeal to force – using threats instead of reasoning.
5. Gish gallop – overwhelming opponents with numerous weak or irrelevant arguments, making them impossible to refute within time constraints.



Recognizing fallacies allows audiences to resist manipulation and helps debaters maintain credibility. Even so, research shows that fallacious or sensational rhetoric can be persuasive if the audience cannot easily verify facts or if the message taps into existing biases.



Good versus bad rhetoric



Plato distinguished between rhetoric that aims at the truth and flattery masquerading as persuasion. Good rhetoric serves the public good by clarifying issues, using sound reasoning and respecting the audience’s agency. Bad rhetoric appeals to prejudice and emotion to manipulate and may distort or suppress facts. Professor William FitzGerald notes that political arguments often use metaphors, ad hominem attacks, appeals to expertise and moral appeals; the challenge for citizens is distinguishing persuasion for the public good from propaganda.



Therefore, ethical debaters should:



1. Ground arguments in evidence – avoid falsehoods and cite credible sources.
2. Respect opponents and audiences – critique ideas rather than attacking persons.
3. Balance appeals – use emotion to humanize issues but not to mislead or incite hatred.
4. Expose fallacies – call out misleading tactics like Gish gallops or straw men.
5. Cross‑cultural and comparative rhetoric



Rhetoric is not monolithic. Comparative rhetoric studies how different societies frame persuasion. Scholars argue that Western composition courses often rely on Greek and Roman traditions, which can be ethnocentric in a globalized world. Comparative rhetoric aims to achieve a “creative understanding” across cultures by recognizing the rhetorical traditions of Asian, Indigenous and other societies. Robert T. Oliver’s seminal work on Asian rhetoric emphasized that understanding Asian rhetorical practices broadens horizons beyond the Western canon.



Eastern traditions, influenced by Confucianism and other philosophies, value harmony, indirectness and the cultivation of moral character, which contrasts with Western emphasis on direct argumentation and individual authority. Implementing comparative rhetoric in education exposes students to alternative patterns of reasoning and helps avoid ethnocentric assumptions.



Cross‑cultural misunderstandings often result from hasty generalization, a fallacy that attributes the behavior of a few members to an entire group. Stereotypes of national identity, gender or religion arise from such blanket statements and can lead to prejudice and even racism. While our ability to generalize is a necessary cognitive function for establishing patterns, uncritical generalizations are harmful.



Ethical rhetoric must be aware of these pitfalls.



Rhetoric in different domains



Politics and civic life



Political debates rely heavily on rhetoric because speakers must persuade broad audiences who cannot fact‑check everything. Good rhetoric fosters informed deliberation; bad rhetoric inflames prejudice. The Gish gallop technique is common in political debates and online discussions: speakers fire off numerous weak arguments to overwhelm opponents. Political communicators also use metaphors, three‑part lists and emotive language, and appeals to fear or hope to mobilize supporters. Repetition and slogans (e.g., “Make America Great Again”) reinforce messages and create identification. However, rhetorical excess can erode trust; normative expectations of courtesy and evidence remain essential.



Law and advocacy



In legal advocacy, rhetoric must persuade judges and juries without violating rules of evidence. Lawyers use ethos , logos and pathos to influence verdicts. Advocacy guides emphasize devices like tricolon and anaphora (repeating structures three times) to present three concise reasons and give weight to key points. Ethical lawyers avoid overt appeals to prejudice and stick to the facts.



Advertising and marketing



Advertising is a form of rhetorical debate aimed at consumers. Marketers use logos (claims about product performance), ethos (celebrity endorsements) and pathos (aspirational imagery). Rhetorical devices like repetition, alliteration and jingles make messages memorable. Appeals to fear or envy can border on manipulation, and regulations restrict deceptive advertising.



Everyday interactions



Rhetoric is embedded in everyday life. We use persuasive appeals in job interviews, parenting and friendships to influence outcomes or express values. Recognizing rhetorical situations helps individuals choose appropriate strategies and critically evaluate others’ messages. Understanding that everyone is a rhetorician encourages ethical self‑awareness.



Digital rhetoric and AI



The digital age has transformed rhetorical practice. Digital rhetoric examines how language and persuasion function in online environments. One consequence of the digital situation is information overload – vast streams of messages produce “information anxiety” or “infobesity,” making it hard for audiences to process and judge information. Algorithms and data analytics treat humans as “automatic choice‑making machines,” predicting behavior and shaping persuasive content. Rhetorical scholars argue that digital rhetoric must address not only message design but also the ethics of data collection and algorithmic targeting.



Artificial intelligence (AI) further complicates rhetoric. Large language models can generate persuasive arguments tailored to individual preferences. A 2025 research report found that AI debaters could shift participants’ views more effectively than human opponents, especially when models were provided with personal data.



Researchers warn that AI‑generated debates could microtarget voters, spread misinformation and manipulate public opinion. Yet AI persuasion could also be used to debunk conspiracy theories and reduce prejudice. The future of rhetoric will therefore depend on how societies regulate and integrate AI into public discourse.



Predictions for the future



A timeline for AI rhetoric in college writing suggests that by 2125 rhetoric will evolve through five phases: prompt literacy and critique (2025‑2045), AI co‑writing studios (2045‑2065), adaptive AI rhetoric tutors (2065‑2085), civic algorithmic rhetoric (2085‑2105) and cultural authorship labs (2105‑2125). Scholars predict that AI will expand classical ethos, pathos and logos to include AI‑mediated appeals and collaborative communication. The Gray Group notes that the future of rhetoric will harness digital platforms, virtual reality and AI, offering innovative persuasive tactics while raising new ethical questions.



Deepfake technology and synthetic media will make it harder to trust audiovisual evidence; institutions will need tools to verify authenticity and educate audiences on media literacy. Disinformation campaigns may exploit AI to produce targeted propaganda, requiring rhetorical training to include critical evaluation of sources and algorithmic transparency.



Conclusion



Rhetoric is not a relic of ancient Greece but the lifeblood of debate in politics, law, advertising and everyday life. It combines logical reasoning, ethical character and emotional appeal to persuade audiences. Effective debate rhetoric respects truth and civic purpose; unethical rhetoric manipulates emotions and exploits cognitive biases. Understanding rhetorical devices and fallacies helps speakers persuade responsibly and enables audiences to resist manipulation.



Comparative rhetoric reminds us that persuasive norms differ across cultures and that ethnocentrism limits understanding. As we move into a digital and AI‑mediated future, rhetoric will be shaped by algorithmic targeting, synthetic media and collaborative human–AI communication. Debaters and citizens must therefore cultivate critical literacy, ethical awareness and adaptability to ensure that rhetoric serves democracy rather than undermines it.