Most comparative studies have focused on Obama and Trump’s elocution (e.g. Hill, 2020) or invention (Bostdorf, 2017). Much less research has been done on both speaker’s arrangement and deviation...Show moreMost comparative studies have focused on Obama and Trump’s elocution (e.g. Hill, 2020) or invention (Bostdorf, 2017). Much less research has been done on both speaker’s arrangement and deviation from the classical prescripts. Nevertheless, arrangement is an important process that is omnipresent in different canons and complicated by nature as there is not one set framework of ordering. The lack of a set order is caused by the heavy influence the audience has on the disposition of a speech. This thesis will look at arrangement in a broader sense by investigating how information is ordered in various cannons of rhetoric. Finally, this thesis aims to answer the central question: is Obama or Trump the most successful classical rhetorical speaker in terms of arranging the information in their speech. To research this, I examined and compared one set of speeches by Obama and Trump with various classical pre-set orders. The classical orders that were used were the parts of speech by Cicero, the three appeals by Aristotle, and Aristotle's stock issues that Katula and Roth modified to suit the modern deliberative rhetoric. Stock issues are questions that frequently occur during argumentation. They can help the speaker anticipate what questions will be asked and help the critic ask appropriate questions (Katula and Roth, 1980, p. 184). The results showed that Obama’s speech was closer to the classical pre-sets than Trump’s speech. Obama incorporates each component of the arrangement, whereas Trump has shown to leave out certain components. These results propose that classical rhetoric is still prevalent in modern rhetoric and suggest how classical rhetoric can be altered to suit the present-day audience. With this thesis, I hope to have shed light on the value of classical rhetoric, in particular of arrangement, in modern debate.Show less