Forensic argumentation in education

In this paper, argumentation, education and law are recomposed in a complementary way: the aim is to show not only that argumentation is a component of the practice of teaching / learning in legal education, but that legal argumentation can serve as a model for democratic education of the citizen. In particular, I will first show the intersection between the judicial dimension and society, through an analysis of the judicial procedure in its primitive forms that appeared in Archaic Greece (neikos). The examples of judgments drawn from classical Greek literature are re-examined in the argumentative framework and are functional to delineate the archetype of forensic rhetoric. In the following sections, I question the widespread image of trial as an arena, valuing forensic rhetoric as a model, capable of enhancing the ethical demands of cooperative argumentation, as opposed to a competitive dialectic. Not even the trial, in fact, ends in a confrontation between two opponents, but develops in a relationship between several parties (a polylogue).