Yosef Rosenblatt wrote:
> Rhetoric by definition is unanswerable. Therefore, rhetoric
> does not add to the debate or spread understanding.

Not by any recognized definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetoric
I recognize full well that rhetoric now holds a negative connotation, as
evidenced by the minority definitions listed. But its correct denotation is
a verbal art. Done well, it does add to the debate, but makes the dissenting
response more difficult, by winning mind and heart to what it affirms.

Surprisingly, name-calling still works to silence reasoned argument, or to
persuade others not to take it to heart.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *