Most organizations trying to rally support use rhetoric. Take a look at the doublespeak in the average industry "patent pool" extortion organization, and how often they use words like "innovation" and "incentivize" and "protect". Refusing to resort to rhetoric while your opponents have no such qualms is a losing proposition.
I strongly disagree. bullshit sells better in the short term but eventually it poisons your audience. Being truthful and circumspect is a much better foundation for long-term credibility.
I normally don't tend to favor dictionary definitions as a point in an argument, but in this case, I think it's the most relevant answer. Rhetoric is "using language effectively and persuasively". That doesn't in any way imply misleading, though rhetoric can be (and sadly is often) used to mislead. But rhetoric can also be (and should be) used to find the most effective argumentative tactic to promote a valid point.
When speaking to an audience receptive to logical argument, use the most effective possible logical argument and evidence. When speaking to an audience moved primarily by emotion (outrage, pity, righteousness, take your pick), use the most effective possible appeal to those emotions. When you can do both, do both. Find the argumentative tactic that works with your audience and use it.
