At the beginning of this course I saw rhetoric as a form of persuasion through the use of a “rhetorical arsenal” in pathos, logos, and ethos. While this is true of rhetoric, I have come to understand some other concepts and theories that have expanded my definition if I were to rewrite it. The biggest impression upon me so far this semester in the course has been the dilemma over where rhetoric belongs–its domain. In almost every chapter of our textbook, a large portion is dedicated to establishing where each culture considers the domain of rhetoric. This also expands a lot through the development of rhetoric–particularly now as we look at women in rhetoric. Another addition I would make to my definition is the role rhetoric plays in religion. Every culture has struggled with where rhetoric fits into their respective religion–or if it even fits at all. Many religions, as we have seen, do not consider rhetoric to be involved with their teachings as it has a negative connotation and is perceived as non-religious. This provides for an excellent debate of is rhetoric involved or not.