Perpetual and nominating phrases in academic spaces, such as "good teacher," "meet students where they are," and "teachers don't teach for the income," argue specific social assumptions and have subjective consequences. Furthermore, the subjected may help perpetuate such rhetorical phrases due to ideological formations. The discourse-historical approach and Aristotle's concepts of rhetorical argumentation aid qualitative educational researchers who want to interrogate positionality in academic environments. The discourse-historical approach deconstructs ideological structures by analyzing social semiotic language, while Aristotle's concepts of rhetoric and argumentation enhance analysis of knowledge construction and commonly accepted opinions. This case study explains the discourse-historical approach and rhetorical argumentation frameworks applied in the Apparently, "Good Teachers" Are Superhuman study. It identifies appropriate uses for the discourse-historical approach, presents analytical frameworks of argumentation schemes, and proposes shifts in educational perspectives for positive social change. [This content is provided in the format of an e-book.]