The common topics are topics that might apply in any rhetorical situation. The idea is that you learn them, find memorable examples, and when a situation arises, you search your database of topics to find the one's most likely to apply, decide if your existing examples can be quoted or if you should make your own.
People sometimes observe that these 28 topics are logical fallacies. They are but that's irrelevant. Remember that Aristotle limits rhetoric to those situations where no more precise ways of thinking exist because there are unknowns or because the audience can't follow more precise thinking (scientific or dialectical). The goal of rhetoric, then, is persuasion, not truth. So yes, these topics aren't logical proofs. But that doesn't mean they are wrong or to be avoided. If that doesn't convince, then consider the following in self-defense. You will encounter at least one of these on a daily basis. You have been warned.
Temperance (S) is a good thing (P), for lack of self control (-S) is harmful (-P).
Or, if you took credit for the economic upswing, why won't you accept blame now that things have turned down?
Is justice good? Justice cannot be entirely good because what is entirely good is desirable, but to be put to death justly is undesirable. Another very different kind of argument from grammatical forms might be, "If you're bored then you're boring". Or, There's a big difference between being alone and being lonely. If it is legal to sell X, it ought to be legal to buy X. It is better to be rich than to be famous because poverty can actually kill you while
obscurity will only make you wish you were dead. There is a scene in an
episode from the TV series M*A*S*H* that dramatizes this form of argumentation. Radar O'Riley is scraping the remains of his dinner into a garbage can outside the mess. Major Burns approaches and accuses him of wasting perfectly good food. Radar defends himself by pointing out that the peas are so hard he broke a tooth on one and the meat is just gristle and bone. Burns reiterates that food should not be wasted, at which point Colonel Potter walks up and asks what the problem is. Burns explains (whines) that he is on garbage patrol and this man is wasting food. Potter says:" Burns, if there is any food left over you can eat it," and then he walks away as Radar hands Burns his tray. Burns is left staring at the mess of inedible food that he would have forced Radar to eat, but which he would never eat himself. Thus he is exposed in a paradox. It is worth pointing out that Radar could not have pulled this argument off, given his inferior rank. In argumentation it is not just a question of what to say, but who can say it, when, and where.Topic 1 antithesis
the opposite of the opposite. Any sentence consists of at least two parts: a subject (S) and a predicate (P). The subject is the thing you are talking about and the predicate is the thing you are claiming is true about the subject. If you want to test the relationship between a particular subject and predicate, create a sentence based on the opposite subject (-S) and the opposite predicate (-P). If this sentence is plausible, then your first one may appear plausible. You might also construct an enthymeme based on the pair of sentences, as Aristotle does in the following example:
Winning is good because losing is bad.
If there is a reward for heroism, there should be a penalty for desertion.
"If it is wrong to speak ornately, let us expel eloquence entirely from the state; but if it adorns not only its possessor but the whole community, why is it shameful to learn what it is honourable to know? Why is it not glorious to teach that which it is most excellent to know?" (Cicero, Orator 41.142)
Topic 2 grammatical forms
You can test the validity of a proposition by substituting one grammatical form of the subject (say a noun) for another (say an adjective). Aristotle offers something like:
Topic 3 correlatives
Correlative terms require each other. You can't have one without the other. The correlative of aunt is niece or nephew. A person cannot sell something if no one will buy it. Because both terms require each other, it would seem that anything that can be said of one could plausibly be said of the other. Correlative terms often appear to be opposites, just as the opposite of to sell is to buy. But correlatives are not opposite terms because they do not behave the way opposites do. If two terms are opposites, then usually their evaluative adjectives are opposites. If winning is the opposite of losing, and winning is good, then losing must be bad. So, it would be dumb to argue that if winning is good, losing must be good also. Although this argument looks like an argument from correlative terms, it is not because winning and losing are not correlative but opposites. You can decide whether two terms are correlative or opposite by making sentences of each with the same predicate and deciding whether the resulting enthymeme is plausible or stupid.
If charity is a virtue, then how could begging be a sin? Topic 4 more and less. aka a fortiori
This topic forms a comparison of two things based on an analogy. If A is to B as C is to D and A > C, then B is > D. Aristotle offers something like the following example: if the gods cannot comprehend everything, then how possibly could man? This argument relies on the judges inferring that gods have greater understanding than men, and therefore that if their understanding is exceeded men's understanding must also be exceeded. Who do you suppose would win if the biggest football player arm-wrestled with the biggest jockey? If he had girlfriends when he was married, what are the chances he does now that he is a widow?Topic 5 then and now
If you would have done it in the past, why not do it now? This topic works by asserting that things have remained the same even though time has passed. But of course, you can always invert this topic, as you can with any rhetorical argument, and argue that because time has passed, things must have changed: that was then but this is now. In other words, you can use the same evidence to prove the opposite point. Another variation is to project into the future rather than to compare the present with the past. We might call this the "history will judge us" argument. This encourages people to think beyond their current situation and consider a larger persepctive.Topic 6 you did it too
Accusing the accuser of the same thing he or she has accused you off.
The topic attempts to invalidate the accusation by discrediting the accuser, or by making the act seem less reprehensible by associating it with a more respected person.Topic 7 by definition
A predicate is attached to a subject by defining the predicate
in such a way that the connection would seem to follow. Arron (S) is an avaricious (P) person, for he took money from a sleeping vagrant (definition of avarice, one who takes money--the sleeping vagrant is
thrown in to intensify the connection between S and P). Obviously, one who takes money also defines a thief, but a thief may or may not be avaricious. One might steel (even from a vagrant) to feed one's
children.Topic 8 varied meanings of a word
In argumentation it is always important to know whether the terms one is inclined to use have singular or multiple meanings. One way to find out is to look at a term's opposite. We can say that both a knife and a musical note are sharp. But we can tell that they are not the same sharp because the opposite of a sharp note is flat while the opposite of a sharp knife is dull. While this example seems to belabor the obvious, the complexity of many terms is not obvious, and thinking always of a term's opposite may suggest ways to argue. (see Topica 1.15).Topic 9 division
Treat a single subject as one made up of several parts. Aristotle's
example in this case is relatively clear. "All people do wrong for one of
three reasons: for this, or this, or this. The first two are impossible
and even the accusers do not assert the third."Topic 10 induction or
argument from parallel cases
You can attach a predicate to a subject by
piling up other cases when the predicate was attached to other subjects of
the same kind. If there were a Presidential election at hand, and one of
the candidates was under six feet tall, you could argue that the one over
six feet would win by pointing out that there has not been a President
under six feet tall since the eighteenth-century.Topic 11 previous
judgments, precedent or tradition or authority or majority
We did it
before, why not do it again? They did; so why not us? Everybody's doing
it; why can't we?Topic 12 from whole
to one of its parts
If a term consists of several things, and people are
willing to apply the term to a person or thing, then any part of that term
is also applicable. If wisdom, say, were defined as possessing knowledge
of all the liberal arts and sciences, and someone was said to be wise,
then you could infer or argue that this same someone must be able to sing
and dance and solve complex equations. Topic 13 argument
from consequences
Sometimes the end justifies the means. Pragmatism, by
the way, is a form of philosophy based entirely on this topic. You should
go to school and study hard because if you do you will get a lucrative and
prestigious job. [Evaluation be means of comparison of consequences. You
can compare the relative value of two competing things by comparing the
relative value of their results. If A produces B and C produces D and
B>D, then A>C. It is also possible to combine argument from
consequences with antithesis. In other words, you can make your reasoning
all the more spectacular by inverting the terms used for the comparison,
and then evaluating their consequences:
Topic 14 argument from contrasted matters
I find Aristotle's example, which I am paraphrasing here, brilliant and compelling, even though I have only a very vague idea of what general case it is a specific example of. "You should not engage in public debate because if you say what is just, the people will hate you, but if you say what is unjust, the gods will. But you should engage in public debate because if you speak truth, the gods will love you and if you speak false, the people will." It seems like this form of argument is useful for when trying to get people to abandon a proposed course of action: if we do X, it will turn out badly one way or another. So let's not do it. The positive version of this would be an argument with a "win -win" design. Topic 15 hypocracy
When
dealing with people who hold one view in private and its opposite in public, Aristotle advises one should draw the opposite conclusion from what they say. If you know that the opponents hold two different views depending on the circumstances, then you should try to trap them in a paradox by pointing out that they have done or said one thing at one time but the opposite at another--they are recommending a vast expenditure of public money, but last night they ducked out of a fancy restaurant just before the waiter brought the bill. Consider the following pair of quotations: "[It's] a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts." GOP Sen. Jesse Helm of North Carolina, on why federal AIDS spending should be reduced. "I wonder if he feels the same about Americans dying of cancer because they smoke?" Jeanne White-Ginder, on Helms. Her 18-year-old son Ryan White died of complications from AIDS in 1990. (Quoted from Newsweek July 17, 1995. 19).
Topic 16 consequences by analogy
Lahnam's example is easier to follow than Aristotle's on this one, I think. To paraphrase: If a person has argued that we should grant the vote to anyone old enough to fight, say: "well then we must deny the vote to anyone too old to fight" (Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms 168). Or, if someone were making an anti-gay argument by insisting that homosexuality is a choice, one might respond by asking, "When did you choose not be be gay?" Topic 17 If two
results are the same, their causes must be.
Aristotle cites Xenophanes who said that the people who argue that the gods are born and the people who argue that the gods are dead are both guilty of impiety, since both are arguing by implication that the gods are mortal.Topic 18 previous
decision to a current case
The point here is simply that past actions govern future decisions if one applies or demands consistency of action. If we fought our way home from exile, it would be absurd now that we are home to choose exile over fighting.Topic 19 the purpose
for which something does exist or might happen is the cause for which it does exist or has happened.
In other words, consider the motivation for an action or event as the cause of the action or event. One could explain a grave misfortune by saying that god would not give anyone more trouble than they can handle, and thus that the cause of the trouble was the fact that god knew and wanted you to know you could handle it. Topic 20 motive
If
you want to argue that something did happen or something will happen, show that the people involved desire or desired the event in question, and that they are capable or were capable of doing it. Topic 21 truth is
stranger than fiction
Sometimes the very implausibility of an act or event makes it credible. This topic works something like the old excuse, "If I were going to lie, would I make up such an unbelievable story?" Perhaps another way to employ this topic is to argue that something improbable must have happened or will happen because something even more improbable already has: we will find a cure for AIDS soon, who would have thought even thirty-five years ago that we would by flying airplanes to the stars and back on a regular basis. Topic 22 inaccuracies and self-contradictions
Refute the opponent's points point for point by showing how they could not possibly be true or could not ethically be brought against you by someone like them.Topic 23 state the cause of a false impression
If people believe something which you don't want them to believe, explain how it is that they may have come to their "false" conclusions. An odd example: I saw Mama kissing Santa Claus last night. From a child's perspective, this might seem scandalous, but to people who know that Santa Claus does not exist, then the obvious explanation would be that Santa Claus was Dad and thus there was no scandal. Topic 24 from cause
to effect and from effect to cause
You can prove the existence of a thing
if you can prove its cause exists or the effect it has exists. Though it doesn't have the same force, proving motive works in a similar wat. Topic 25 Offer alternative explanations or solutions.
Topic 26 Compare past instances of similar kinds.
Topic 27 Argument from probably behavior
If I were going to do X, then I would certainly have done Y (so as not to get caught). But I never tried to cover my tracks, so obviously I did not do X. You could call this the Sharon Stone (Basic Instinct) defense. If I were a novelist who was murdering people, would I be dumb enough to write a novel about a novelist who murders people? That would make me the prime suspect. Topic 28 You could argue that a person's name is a sign of their actions.
Local politicians, Swindal and Scandalacous.