While the textbook, “A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers,” naturally showcases the importance of the art of rhetoric, it appears that not everyone agrees with the idea that rhetoric is, ultimately, a good thing. I am puzzled by the controversy that this subject has caused. Because there are so many different definitions and views of rhetoric, I am not sure if there ever could be a definitive way to identify the subject. On one side, scholars view rhetoric as a tool for the slimy and the corrupt to influence the ignorant masses, and on another side, rhetoric is a tool for learning and teaching the ignorant. Of course, a third side believes that rhetoric is both these things, it is just how one uses it. To this third side, rhetoric is a tool with no agenda, ill will, or noble purpose of its own. Like a hammer or a scalpel, it could be used for good or bad, or neither. Before rhetoric I have never encountered a subject so fraught with controversy since learning about evolution.