During the in class discussion, many of my peers attempted to define rhetoric as persuasion and may have agreed with the, empty beautification of words definition believed by Plato.  Their opinions aside, I would still attempt to persuade them that to say that rhetoric is persuasive and used by those that wish to influence or take advantage of another person is looking at rhetoric in a very single dimensioned outlook.  Yes, the cheats and flatterers that Plato and Aristotle talk about manipulate words to create a “fact” that changes the less educated mind’s belief, but rhetoric and the beautifications of words and ideas can be used in many other ways as well.

I continue to believe that rhetoric is any idea that is portrayed to an audience through any means.  That being said, I also still agree with Herrick’s 6 characteristics of rhetoric; rhetoric must be planned, adapted to an audience, shaped by human motives, responsive to a situation, persuasion-seeking, and concerned with contingent issues.  Even while fulfilling those six parameters, while admittedly stretching the concepts a decent amount, I genuinely believe that one may easily be able to label any work of literature or speech or artwork or play or location or sport as what it truly is; rhetoric.