Scholars have long been interested in the relation between rhetoric and dialectic. Recent theorists suggest that one way of viewing argument is through the perspective of argument-as-procedure, in which rules such as those attendant to the conduct of dialectic, debate, or discussion come under the purview of argumentation. This paper is a critical study of that idea, and uses Schopenhauer's little known essay "The Art of Controversy" as a text because of its realistic and slightly ironic approach to philosophical discussion. The body of the essay is several dozen strategems that Schopenhauer recommends to dialecticians, especially those who find themselves on the wrong end of an argument. In understanding "The Art of Controversy," more informed decisions can be made on several issues. Once the normal features of marketplace argumentation are accounted for, does anything distinctive still inhere in philosophical argument? Or, do the formal and informal rules of dialectic, debate and discussion restrain or change the nature of argument? These questions promote a return to the initial idea of argument-as-procedure. If procedure still seems attractive after Schopenhauer, it is possible to be confident of the perspective's value. (CRH)