Through his Socratic dialogue Phaedrus, Plato used three speeches to demonstrate rhetoric's purpose of conveying and convincing people of truth, rather than persuading them toward non truth. .
In the first speech, a young boy named Phaedrus recounts a speech by a man named Lysius. Convinced by Lysius, Phaedrus wholeheartedly embraced the idea that taking a non-lover was better than taking a lover. Lysius carefully crafted his argument. He passionately explained why lack of passion is best in a relationship, despite the fact that he wanted the opposite from Phaedrus. The way Lysius presented his argument seduced Phaedrus past reason on the intellectual level, as Lysius crafted his argument causing his style to be more important than substance. Lysius' rhetoric was not dedicated to truth. He used his words to get what he wanted. When Socrates heard Lysius' speech, he immediately presented a counter argument of his own, or so it seems. Instead of disagreeing with Lysius, Socrates presented the same argument, but from the opposite point of view. Instead of extolling the utilitarian benefits of non-lovers, Socrates simply explained the detriments of lovers. Socrates employed empty, but crafty, rhetoric just like Lysius, in order to seduce Phaedrus for his own. Just like Lysius, Socrates used his words for his own benefit. .
However, immediately after Socrates finished his argument, he realized he had done wrong by convincing Phaedrus of that which is not true. He taught Phaedrus non-love is greater than divine love, which, as Socrates later states, is the opposite of truth. Anything divine is by nature greater than anything corporeal. Love is better; love is stronger than earthly passion because of its divine quality. Instead of lying to him any longer, Socrates explained to Phaedrus the truth, and convinced him to reject the lies that he was previously told, using his persuasive skills to convince the boy of the truth.