Ramage

I think that Ramage's use of the "Anti-Rhetorical spokesperson" is an effective tool. Ramage utilizes this "person" as a vehicle to make the point that one must employ rhetoric in his/her attempt to express the uselessness of rhetoric. So the anti-rhetorical spokesperson is essentially talking themselves into a paradoxical corner. I assume the reason for Ramage's use of this person prior to his retort is to "frame the debate." I personally find it more effective to have someone respond to accusations, etc. than to make thier point sans a frame of reference. Therefore I think that this move by Ramage is good strategy-wise.
So far I am enjoying Ramage, but at times I get a little lost in his extended metaphors and examples, that to me, seem to border on tangents that get slightly off topic. I also struggle with the lack of a concrete definition for rhetoric. I understand that such a thing does not technically exist, but it still makes me a little uneasy. When there is not a concrete definition I find it hard to tell whether or not I am fully grasping the concept.