Classical rhetoric, going back to Aristotle, divides persuasive speech into three genuinely distinct types based on what situation the speech is actually addressing. Epideictic rhetoric praises or blames someone or something in the present, a eulogy, a wedding toast. Deliberative rhetoric argues for or against a specific future course of action, a policy debate, a campaign speech. Forensic rhetoric argues about whether a past action was actually right or wrong, a courtroom argument establishing guilt or innocence. Each type asks a genuinely different question and calls for a genuinely different kind of supporting argument.
Each type is anchored to a different point in time and a different central question
Epideictic rhetoric is anchored in the present, asking essentially "how should we regard this person or thing right now," and it builds its case around values and shared standards of honour or worth rather than around disputed facts. Deliberative rhetoric is anchored in the future, asking "what should we do going forward," and it builds its case around likely consequences and practical advantage. Forensic rhetoric is anchored in the past, asking "did this actually happen, and was it just," and it builds its case around evidence and precedent establishing what actually occurred and whether it was justified.
Knowing which type is actually in play changes what counts as a strong argument
Because each type answers a genuinely different underlying question, the kind of argument that works well in one type often lands weakly, or not at all, in another: a courtroom argument heavy on future consequences rather than what actually happened misses forensic rhetoric's actual question, just as a eulogy built around disputed facts rather than shared values misses epideictic rhetoric's actual purpose. Recognising which of the three situations a given speech is actually operating in is exactly the first step toward building, or critically evaluating, a genuinely well-aimed persuasive argument.
What we're still unsure about
That epideictic, deliberative and forensic rhetoric represent three genuinely distinct rhetorical situations, each calling for its own kind of supporting argument, is well established, classical rhetorical theory that's remained influential for over two thousand years. What's more genuinely a matter of ongoing critical application is exactly how cleanly real, modern persuasive speech actually sorts into just these three categories, since a single modern speech, a political address weighing both a leader's past record and future promises, can genuinely blend more than one of these classical types together, and rhetoricians continue to debate how well the ancient threefold division maps onto genuinely mixed, modern persuasive forms.
This sits inside Epideictic, Deliberative & Forensic Rhetoric, one of seven topics in Rhetoric, one of five domains in Literature, one of seventeen subjects the app can quiz you on.