如今人们对“修辞”往往有一种误解,认为修辞只不过是实际生活中的文字修饰,甚至是一种“为了说服而说服”的“毒药般”方法或手段。究其原因:一是对修辞研究领域的认识不清导致的概念混淆和曲解;二是在研究和分析修辞时放弃了以论证为基础的传统。现实情况是法律修辞无法避开这种贬义性评价之厄运。事实上,如果回归到古希腊罗马时代,不难发现法律修辞并非追求那种完全置法律论证不顾、一味追求“为了说服而说服”的“华而不实”、“浮夸连篇”、“玩弄词藻”的说服技艺,而恰恰是建立在法律论证基础之上的修辞。 Nowadays, people often misunderstand “Rhetoric ” and think that rhetoric is just a word modification in real life, or even a “poison-like ” method or means “persuading people to persuade ”. The reasons are as follows: First, the concept confusion and misinterpretation caused by unclear understanding in the field of rhetoric research; Second, abandon the tradition based on argumentation in the study and analysis of rhetoric. The reality is that legal rhetoric can not evade the bad luck of this derogatory appraisal. In fact, if we return to the era of ancient Greece and Rome, it is not hard to find that legal rhetoric is not to pursue the kind of “flashy”, “exaggeration” and “persuasion” “Use the rhetoric ” persuasion skills, and it is precisely based on the legal argument based rhetoric.