This comparative inquiry of how male and female South African parliament members employ intertextuality to convince others of their opinion and refute their adversaries' points for a debating meeting, demonstrates that the MPs call via logos with the use of a great intertext frequency as arguing strategy; via ethos with intertext use that executes the rhetorical appealing role; and via pathos with the application of a broad set of sources and intertextual patterns of others. Males and females are equal as to their practice of implicit and explicit intertextuality (EI), both highly electing EI and using horizontal more often than vertical intertextuality, though the breach between the two aspects is very small.