What elements from classical rhetoric do we seem particularly in need of today? This is one of the questions we have been asking as we consider how documentary is one place where the older art of rhetoric and oratory seems to be thriving. As we turn attention to Arrangement, the second part of rhetoric after Invention, we can continue to think about developing or discovering the means of persuasion and argumentation.
I would pose the refutation (refutatio), the fifth of the six parts of a classical oration, as a great example of a rhetorical tradition we can learn from. In our discourse today, we have lots of refutation in a more recent and narrow sense: “You’re wrong.” “I disagree.” “I refute your position in the strongest of terms.” Or worse, but only slightly different from what we observe in political discourse: the staging of argument as a fight that relies on fallacies such as ad hominem (attacking the opponent) and tu quoque (deflecting the allegation or critique onto the opponent, known today as “what aboutism” and “gaslighting”). Such is the argument of fixed positions, not the art of a Rhetoric that understood an argument has to be arguable, necessarily disagreed with (at first) if it is to be persuasive.
Refutation, then, is a tool of persuasion and invention, not just a section of an argument’s arrangement. Note the ways that refutation shows up in the progymnasmata, the topics and commonplaces (the ways that an argument was developed and practiced). Refutation helps the orator get to the heart of what will make the argument work. It also provides the orator/rhetor with a way to develop, elaborate, qualify, and complicate the argument. Confirmation and refutation go hand in hand.
Consider the ways several of Aristotle’s 28 common topics engage with elements of refutation:
- Topic 1: restate contention in opposite: Is the opposite true of the opposite?
- Topic 2: redefine a key term slightly
- Topic 15: oppose an argument by seeming to allow it and then maintaining that things are not what they seem
- Topic 21: make people believe an improbability
- Topic 22: Catch opponent out on self-contradictions, inaccuracies
- Topic 23: Refute slander, mistaken view of facts
Or, if you think about it, any of the topics could be used as part of a refutation: “Some might claim X. That’s a legitimate point, so let me respond by arguing…”
Also consider the issue of logical fallacies. When an argument fails to persuade, one of the core problems concerns the absence of qualification–the consideration of alternative perspectives that the writer may not be entertaining fully. The refutation is a place in the argument to take this up. One way to do this is with the figure Leith identifies as concessio, the conceding of a minor point in order to gain a more important one.
In our vernacular today, the refutation is known as counterargument.
With counterargument, we anticipate (prolepsis) and answer objections. We also use it to re-evaluate our own argument and make adjustments. One way to think about this is that we use counterargument to test for fallacies in our own argumentation. And it can function like concessio: we concede a point in order to make a stronger one.
Central Park Five: video resources
- The film is available through our library database Kanopy. You can access it here (when on campus network).
- The full video confession by Korey Wise, made by the prosecution (and, as you know, recanted by Korey before the trial), is available here on YouTube.
Available Means 