Response to rhetorical definitions

                I am very glad that I had the opportunity to read other people’s ideas about rhetoric and to see their point of view. It was interesting to see how much many of us agreed. Patrick and I both brought in the defined meaning of rhetoric to use in our own definitions, but he used it differently than I did. Instead of using it to support his own thoughts, he chose to analyze the definition and see how it was similar or different to his own ideas, which I thought was really interesting. If I would edit my response in any way in response to his ideas, it would be to add some type of thoughts regarding the definition we both used like he did, to make my agreements or disagreements more clear. I also really liked Bento’s definition of rhetoric. Instead of focusing more on the analytic side of what rhetoric means, he used more support from emotion or emotionally based arguments. He appealed to a different side than most, and explained how rhetoric is effective by showing respect to the other side, which is very important in any type of sharing of ideas where conflict may arise. My mom always told me that people hear you easier when you are talking instead of yelling, and I feel like the ideas Bento had are similar to this type of thinking, in that to use rhetoric to be effective, you need to first show that you acknowledge the other points of view, and have taken them into consideration when drawing up your own side. It was very helpful to see others perspectives after writing my own definition, because it allowed me to see how I might have worded something differently or included different ideas if I had had more ideas or different points of view while creating my own definition.