 Ibn Rushd’s enthusiasm for demonstration does not prevent him from valuing other logical arts, and he was particularly concerned with the place of dialectic. Broadly speaking, according to Aristotle, dialectic has three main uses: as intellectual training, as a path into the demonstrative sciences of philosophy, and as a means of conversing with ordinary people (Topics I.2). But Ibn Rushd devotes less space and shows less interest in this third feature of dialectic, and one wonders whether this is due to his critical reaction to the discursive practices of the mutakallimūn. Despite the many considerations that make dialectic more suitable when dealing with ordinary people, Ibn Rushd suggests that rhetorical and poetic statements are preferable (ParaTop I.5C {31}; Ben Ahmed 2010-2011, 299–302, 307–17). Hence their inclusion in the expanded Organon. The significance of rhetoric and poetics is a result he establishes in political science, but maintains even when it comes to teaching and anchoring theological truths. The bad example set by the dialectical syllogisms of the mutakallimūn shows how dialectical methods, in discussion with ordinary people, are actually disadvantageous.