本文係採文獻回顧法與論證分析途徑，就我國與西方古代最具代表性的論辯學者之觀點進行比較分析，並從現代論證模式的面向凸顯古代論辯可資運用的觀點，期達「鑑古識今」之效。研究發現有三：一為論辯是論證理論的基本架構，論證則是論辯的延伸，並從「主、客觀」對「具體與抽象」的象限之中比較中西方古代論辯觀點的差異性。二為西方的亞里斯多德、西塞諾視論辯為一種理性思考的表達，以人性的觀點來看待問題的倫理價值；這與我國的老子、鄧析、墨子、鬼谷子及孟子等，依天地倫常的人類行為做為論辯基礎的學說均不謀而合。三為以William Dunn及David Vancil為代表的現代論證模式則與中西古代論辯的論點，就具有休戚與共的關聯性及深厚的淵源。

Based on literature review of argumentative analysis approach, the authors compare sophistic viewpoints of ancient scholars of the East and West. Furthermore, the authors try to ensure ancient rhetoric to be explicitly adequate to the modern policy argumentative modes, and to achieve the utility of “know-how throughout the ages”. The results of t his research are as followed: i) Rhetoric is a foundational framework of argumentative theory, while argument is an extension of rhetoric. Meanwhile, from the “subjective and Objective” to “Concrete and Abstract” within a quadrant, it is obviously dedicated to discrepancy with both of ancient Chinese and Western sophists. ii) Aristotle and Cicero regarded that rhetoric is an expression of rational thinking and their logic is as same as Lau-tzu; Deng-xi; Mo-tzu; Kwen-gu-tzu; MOng-tzu. iii) In the case of mainstream discourse of the modern argumentative modes, such as William Dunn and David Vancil, the authors concluded that there is an inseparable relevance and relationship between the ancient Chinese and Western rhetoric.