It's 8pm. You want to go to a party on Saturday. Your parents aren't convinced. You have 60 seconds at the dinner table to change their minds.
Do you beg? Yell? Guilt-trip? Or do you make a case — calmly, with reasons, maybe a little emotional appeal, and just the right timing?
That calculation you just made in your head? That's rhetoric.
What is Rhetoric?
Rhetoric is the art of finding every available means to persuade. Aristotle defined it almost 2,400 years ago. Since then, every politician, lawyer, advertiser, preacher, YouTuber, and debater has been using it — whether they know it or not.
Rhetoric isn't tricks or manipulation. It's about communicating effectively. Every time you argue with a friend, write an essay, or try to convince someone of something — you're doing rhetoric.
In debate, you must construct your own rhetoric (build persuasive arguments) and deconstruct your opponent's (find the flaws in theirs).
The Trivium — the 3 ancient pillars of discourse (this is where "trivial" comes from — it meant "the basics"):
Grammar (define the world through language) → Logic (reach sound conclusions) → Rhetoric (communicate them effectively)
Your school wants to ban phones during lunch. Three students speak at the council meeting:
Each is persuasive — but in completely different ways. Why?
Aristotle's 4 Appeals
Facts, data, statistics, cause-and-effect. Student A above. The "prove it" part. Powerful because it's hard to argue with numbers — but can be dry on its own.
Why should they trust you? Student B speaks from experience. You build ethos by citing sources, showing fairness, and not misrepresenting your opponent.
Stories, vivid imagery, human stakes. Student C makes you feel it. Stories are remembered 22× more than facts alone (Stanford research).
The secret 4th appeal. Why does this matter right now? Kairos turns "we should think about this" into "if we don't act now, we miss the window." It creates the urgency that pushes judges from "interesting" to "convinced."
The best arguments blend all four. Story (pathos) → data (logos) → sources (ethos) → urgency (kairos).
Logos: "In Austria, where 16-year-olds vote, youth turnout is 25% higher."
Ethos: "Constitutional scholars argue taxation without representation applies here."
Pathos: "A 16-year-old can work and pay taxes — but has zero say in the laws governing their life."
Kairos: "With elections in 6 months and record youth engagement, there's never been a better time."
Topic card flipped. Clock starts. A hundred questions fire at once: What do I say? How do I structure it? Story or facts? Who are the judges? How do I start?
There's a model that organizes all of this into 3 dimensions.
The Rhetoric Cube
Every speech is a cube with three visible faces. You can't ignore one without weakening the others.
In a joust: Canons 1-3 happen during prep. Strategies shift mid-speech — narrate → expose → persuade. Elements are your checklist before you open your mouth.
The card reads: "Social media does more harm than good." You have 60 seconds. Your mind goes blank. Palms sweating.
You need a system that works every time.
The PREP Method
In 60 seconds: pick a side → 2 reasons → 1 example each → opening line. Simple beats complicated.
EXAMPLE — "Social media: more harm than good"
P: "Social media causes measurable harm to teenage mental health."
R: "Because it creates constant social comparison and addictive feedback loops."
E: "Teens who quit Instagram for a month reported 25% lower anxiety."
P: "The evidence is clear — the harm outweighs the connection."
Two debaters argue about school uniforms.
Both sound good. But one is airtight and the other has a hole.
Deductive vs Inductive
If premises are true, conclusion must be true. Debater A: if you accept the premises, the conclusion is inescapable.
Conclusion is probable but not certain. Debater B saw a pattern in 3 schools — but maybe they also got new counselors.
In debate: deductive for your strongest points. When your opponent uses induction, probe: "Three examples — is that enough to prove a universal rule?"
Inductive. Small sample, possible confounding factors. Counter: "Correlation isn't causation. Maybe disciplined students both meditate AND study harder."
A news anchor: "The controversial government scheme will force taxpayers to foot the bill for what critics call a reckless experiment."
Sounds like just reporting. Read it again. Every bold word is doing invisible work — making you feel something before you've heard the actual policy.
Welcome to slanters.
Slanters & Loaded Language
A slanter biases the listener without actually arguing anything logically. They're tone manipulation, not evidence. And naming them neutralizes them instantly.
A euphemism softens: "passed away" = died, "collateral damage" = civilian deaths. A dysphemism harshens: "regime" = government, "propaganda" = public info.
THE 9 SLANTERS
Three slanters: Proof surrogate ("everybody knows"), Dysphemism ("nanny-state"), Hyperbole ("never worked anywhere"). Counter: "'Everybody knows' isn't evidence. 'Nanny-state' is framing. And 'never anywhere'? Really?"
Spot Them. Name Them. Destroy Them.
A fallacy looks valid on the surface but has a fatal logical flaw. Naming one in real time is a superpower — it undermines your opponent and shows the judges you're thinking critically.
You make a solid point about nutrition policy. Your opponent fires back:
The room laughs. But did they respond to your argument?
Ad Hominem
They attacked you, not your point. Your eating habits don't change whether the data on school nutrition is valid. The test: does the personal attack change whether the argument is true or false? If not, it's ad hominem.
Nuance: sometimes credibility IS relevant (questioning if someone is really a doctor). Ad hominem is when an irrelevant trait dismisses a valid argument.
Ad Hominem (character). Your stress doesn't invalidate data. "Whether I'm stressed doesn't change that 1 in 5 students need support."
You say: "We should limit screen time for kids under 12."
That's not what you said. So why does it feel like you're losing?
Straw Man
They built a ridiculous exaggeration of your argument and attacked that instead. It's easier to knock down a straw man than fight the real thing. Your only defence: immediately restate your actual position.
Straw Man. "More options" ≠ "force veganism." "I said options, not mandates."
Lots of passion. Lots of volume.
But can you find a single piece of evidence?
Argument from Outrage
Volume replaces logic. The speaker hopes intensity substitutes for evidence. Staying calm after an outburst is devastating in front of judges.
Scary. But is there evidence?
Scare Tactic
Fear bypasses rational thinking. "It could go wrong" isn't an argument unless you show how and why.
Two examples. 7 billion people. Is that enough?
Hasty Generalization
Broad conclusion from limited evidence. Our brains love stories more than stats — one vivid example feels more convincing than 10,000 data points. Don't fall for it.
Agreement within a group doesn't make something true.
Group Think
Loyalty to a group replaces judgment. "We all believe this" ≠ "here's why this is true."
You're debating school uniforms. You make a point about self-expression. Opponent:
Maybe true — but that's not the topic. If you take the bait, your point dies.
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert from the real issue. Named after the old trick of dragging smoked fish across a trail to throw dogs off the scent. Also called a smokescreen. Probably the most important fallacy to spot in impromptu debate.
Red Herring. Exercise is valid but separate. "Exercise is great — but it doesn't answer the motion."
Hopeful. But is "I'm sure" evidence?
Wishful Thinking
Believing something because you want it to be true. "I hope so" ≠ "I know so."
Impressive. But does popularity = truth?
Argument from Popularity
The majority once believed the Earth was flat, that smoking was harmless, that women shouldn't vote. Popularity ≠ truth.
What else happened between September and December?
Post Hoc
Correlation ≠ causation. Just because A happened before B doesn't mean A caused B. Maybe it was the new program, seasonal trends, or ten other things.
Post Hoc. The socks came before the grade but didn't cause it. "Or maybe you studied more?"
6 More to Know
False Dilemma — Only 2 options presented when more exist. "You're either with us or against us."
↪ "That's a false binary."
Slippery Slope — One step → inevitable catastrophe, without evidence for the chain.
↪ "Show me evidence for each step."
Appeal to Authority — Non-expert cited. A celebrity endorsing medicine ≠ medical evidence.
↪ "Famous, but are they expert in THIS?"
Tu Quoque — "You do it too!" Deflection via hypocrisy.
↪ "My behavior doesn't change whether the argument is valid."
Begging the Question — Conclusion used as premise. Circular.
↪ "You're assuming what you need to prove."
No True Scotsman — Redefining to exclude counterexamples.
↪ "You're moving the goalposts."
Your opponent just scored. The room agrees. Judges nodding. It's your turn.
What do you say first?
Debate Moves
⚔ ATTACK
🛡 DEFEND
🧠 ADVANCED: THE STEEL MAN
Opposite of straw man. Present your opponent's argument in its strongest form, then beat that. Judges love this.
Two debaters make the exact same argument. One reads notes in a monotone. The other looks at the judges, pauses, varies pace, closes with quiet confidence.
Same words. Completely different impact.
Delivery
Tip 1: Speak like you're explaining to a smart friend — not reading an essay.
Tip 2: Your first sentence sets the room's energy. Memorize it. Deliver it with eye contact. Then pause.
Confidence ≠ shouting. The most powerful thing: devastating point → silence.
You walk in. Judges seated. Opponent looks confident. Topic card face-down. Heart pounding.
Here's everything you need.
Tournament Cheat Codes
BEFORE
DURING
WHAT JUDGES SCORE
#1 mistake: Ignoring your opponent and just delivering your speech. A debate is a conversation, not two monologues.
Assume nothing · Believe no one · Check everything
August 28, 1963. Washington DC. 250,000 people. A pastor steps to the mic.
The greatest speech of the 20th century. Let's reverse-engineer it.
Martin Luther King Jr. — "I Have a Dream"
Devices: Anaphora Metaphor Allusion Antithesis Tricolon Climax
He didn't just argue — he made people feel, believe, and act.