In this conceptual paper, we differentiate between political decisions and the conversations where these decisions are discussed and facilitated. We complement existing work on argumentation in political communication by applying Aristotle’s Rhetoric to the study of climate change debate. We show how Aristotle’s principles for ethical and rational political speech work toward audience trust and encourage deliberative debate and decision-making. Our deliberative perspective is supported by a case study analysis of Australia’s parliamentary climate change debate. We resurrect Aristotle’s Rhetoric both as an analytical tool for critical analysis and a potential framework for constructive climate change debate. Following the conceptualisation of parliamentary debate as a conversational space where decision-making processes are facilitated, we introduce Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the concept of ‘rhetorical responsibility’, which is further explored and exemplified in the case study. We conclude with future research questions for discourse and political communication studies.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚议会的言论责任

在这篇概念性论文中，我们区分了政治决策和讨论和促进这些决策的对话。我们通过将亚里士多德的修辞学应用于气候变化辩论的研究来补充现有的政治传播论证工作。我们展示了亚里士多德的道德和理性政治演讲原则如何赢得听众的信任并鼓励深思熟虑的辩论和决策。我们的审议观点得到了澳大利亚议会气候变化辩论的案例研究分析的支持。我们复活亚里士多德的修辞学，既作为批判性分析的分析工具，又作为建设性气候变化辩论的潜在框架。在将议会辩论概念化为促进决策过程的对话空间之后，我们介绍了亚里士多德的修辞学和“修辞责任”的概念，这在案例研究中得到了进一步的探讨和例证。我们以话语和政治传播研究的未来研究问题作为结论。