In the second week of
class I had defined the rhetoric as, “a comprehensive art of writing and
speaking, in order to craft a persuasive argument that appeals to the various
appeals of the senses”. Looking back at the definition that I gave for rhetoric,
I would say that based on my experiences during the course of our class that my
stance of the definition I have given for what rhetoric is has changed a little
bit. Mainly that I have forgotten to include one of the most core parts of what
rhetoric is, and that is evidence and audience, because without evidence to
back up your claim or arguments, they are seen as weak arguments because they
have nothing to support and back them up before they fall due to the lack of evidence.
And as for audience, without taking into context what or who your audience is,
it might lead to them not caring about the topic or they might not even care to
listen to you.
Throughout the course
of the class one of the best instances to show how important evidence was for
rhetoric is when we had to argue against each other during these “fight clubs”
or debates as they were. In these cases we had to craft arguments against each
other on topics where we were either a pro or a con for. Now if we didn’t have
a strong thesis or any evidence for our arguments our opponents, if they did
have a strong thesis and lots of evidence, could easily run us into the ground
and tear apart any claims or things we said mainly because we didn’t a
counterpoint or evidence to shield us from their evidence. Plus I know this
from experience from losing every single fight club debate I was ever in.
Furthermore within the
book, “They Say I Say”, there are multiple chapters and two sections devoted to
having evidence and quotation within your arguments. In chapter 3, they credit
the power that evidence and quotations gives to the writer, “Quoting someone
else’s words gives a tremendous amount of credibility to your summary and helps
ensure that it is fair and accurate”. In addition to providing credibility to a
writer, it also adds more ammo that one can use for arguments, since one can
analyze the quote and break it apart, providing what the quote means to the
evidence and thus making the argument bigger.
Lastly the importance
of appealing and relating to the audience is another core and important part of
what defines rhetoric. Without writing or talking to your target audience
without knowing the audience would isolate them from being relatable, and
without feeling relatable they might care to listen or read to your arguments. In
the book, “They Say I say”, they address this issue of having no relation to
the audience, “Though this statement is clear and easy to follow, it lacks any
indication that anyone needs to hear it… But does anyone really care? Who, if
anyone, is interested?” As mention
before, audience is key to having people who care and will listen to your
claims and arguments, without an audience in mind your arguments is nothing but
rabbling about a topic that needs to be address.
Overall throughout this
semester I don’t think I learned a lot from learning about how to write rhetoric,
since it’s a bit similar to writing literary analysis, where it needs a lot of
evidence, but the difference is that rhetoric has to be shaped to meet a target
audience or audiences.
No comments:
Post a Comment