In response to COL McDonald’s question, through my experience in debate, it can be difficult arguing for a point of view in a debate that you do not necessarily agree with. However, whether or not you agree with the side of the issue it is important in rhetoric to understand and recognize the weaknesses and flaws of both sides of an issue. Even if you are not tasked with a specific side of an issue, the flaws of your side are going to be surfaced at one point or another and to win a debate, it is essential to have a logical rebuttal to every chink in your armor or else the point against you will simply fester throughout the remainder of the debate and hurt you in the end.

The most interesting point I took away from this reading is how much rhetoric and rhetorical discourse has evolved in time. For instance, Gorgias was known for using superfluous speech to sway his audience even though his speeches at times may have lacked truly objective facts. As Gorgias may have used poetry and rhythm schemes to win over his audience, contemporary audiences rely on (and insist on) facts and logic to prove a point. While poetry may hit the ear sweetly, I feel as though modern debaters and rhetoricians would simply laugh at an opponent using melodic speech to win an argument. In this way, I feel as though rhetoric, as a discipline, must have evolved in terms of what matters characteristically in speech. To further my observations, I think it would be intriguing to connect the dots and pinpoint where in history the values of rhetoric began to change, or if they did at all. The alternative is perhaps that a more strategic, fact based version of rhetorical dialogue already existed and Gorgias was uncommon.